I'm going to go ahead and edit this post. I think you'll find it copied enough times to not miss any content...

I honestly want to apologize for bringing what I thought was a fairly benign thought before you guys, and realize
that I have offended a lot of you...Please understand this isn't what I wanted, and that I regret it.

I think, with the help of a few of you, that I've come to decide y'all are probably right. Emotional response, to a really bad situation, that even though I'm not in AZ, scared the crap outa me.

I have no agenda, just people I care about, and I think that was my main motivation for posting, using the best reasons I had at the time.

-C

Saym14

01-10-2011, 9:50 PM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation.
-B

you want to bet your life and self defence on statictics? if so you could become one yourself.

cc56

01-10-2011, 9:51 PM

I can respect your opinion, but I disagree. This is one situation where (potentially) a 10 round magazine could of slowed the aggressor, saving lives. On the flip side if he only had 10 rounders he may have become very proficient in reloading. Say he had 5 magazines on him and took out more people... With your logic more people "may" have been saved because he had a 30 round mag, and had to reload. I think we can't blame the object he used to cause destruction, but blame the person. He easily could of used an 18 wheeler and driven through the wall and killed more people. No one would blame the vehicle, but use a gun and the gun is the problem. Again I can respect your opinion, but disagree.

Joe

01-10-2011, 9:54 PM

I can respect your opinion, but I disagree. This is one situation where (potentially) a 10 round magazine could of slowed the aggressor, saving lives. On the flip side if he only had 10 rounders he may have become very proficient in reloading. Say he had 5 magazines on him and took out more people... With your logic more people "may" have been saved because he had a 30 round mag, and had to reload. I think we can't blame the object he used to cause destruction, but blame the person. He easily could of used an 18 wheeler and driven through the wall and killed more people. No one would blame the vehicle, but use a gun and the gun is the problem. Again I can respect your opinion, but disagree.

You have just proven how lethal driving a large vehicle can be. Hopefully our legislators will put an end to that loophole.

To really prevent an incident like this from happening we need to send everyone in the country to prison and be under 100% full lockdown and isolation. There will finally be safety and peace.

Gio

01-10-2011, 9:54 PM

I think we should only be able to have 1 magazine and only be able to hold 6 rounds in it :rolleyes:

PsychGuy274

01-10-2011, 9:55 PM

t doesn't matter what laws are on the books; criminals don't care. They never have and they never will.

As was posted above - You do not dictate what I do or don't need. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to take it away from others.

Suvorov

01-10-2011, 9:58 PM

Wow.

All of what you have said *might* be valid if all you view the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as, is providing people the right to use arms for personal protection. But the 2nd is not about personal protection, it is about maintaining a balance of power (literal power) between the citizenry and the government. The Columbines, Virginia Techs, and all the other mass shootings, while terrible, horrible events PALE in comparison to the atrocities commuted by wayward and despotic governments.

Alas, we live in a fallen world where others do not have respect life and liberty, and the ONLY way that is historically proven to keep them in check is the threat of force. I understand you wanting to extend an olive branch and rationalize what occurred in Arizona, but giving in to the anti-gun faction will only make tragedies like occurred in Arizona seem minor.

To quote Stalin - "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

sandman21

01-10-2011, 10:00 PM

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

If you believe that then there is no reason for a 10 round limit or even a "high power" round like the 9mm, the only gun you should have is a 5 shot Bernardelli 68, also forget about a AR/AK/SKS rifle or pistol. Bletway sniper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks)
You only need one gun as well, if he had a backup he might not have been able to be tackled. If you truly believe it what you wrote then part with your collection.

Drew Eckhardt

01-10-2011, 10:00 PM

I can respect your opinion, but I disagree. This is one situation where (potentially) a 10 round magazine could of slowed the aggressor, saving lives.

A complete ban (no grandfather clause) on handguns might have avoided the situation.

Do you support that too?

Librarian

01-10-2011, 10:07 PM

Disagree with the content, not the poster, please.

andrewj

01-10-2011, 10:08 PM

Stockholm syndrome

speeedracerr

01-10-2011, 10:11 PM

People need to realize that guns are NOT the problem...

Had there been a CCW permit holder there who had shot that punk axx murderer to diffuse the situation before it escalated to a dozen of innocent people getting shot then the story would have been viewed in a different light.

The gun is a tool! The problem is the MENTAL CAPACITY of an individual who uses that tool! Shame on Jared Lee Loughner for committing such violence and I pray that Congressman Giffords as well as the many victims recover soon.

GMH

01-10-2011, 10:12 PM

Idiots will be idiots and this guy is one. I guess I don't look at it as a situation where I wish that he had a smaller magazine in his weapon but rather one where someone else had a CCW and was able to stop him before he needed to reload. Beyond being an idiot, that guy was nuts and should not have had a firearm or a driver's license...

NotEnufGarage

01-10-2011, 10:12 PM

Time to turn off CNN and MSNBC.

oddball

01-10-2011, 10:13 PM

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b169/oddballphoto/facepalm.jpg

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

Frankly, OP, I don't give a rat's *** whether you support liberty or not. However, I appreciate you outing yourself as one who would infringe on the natural rights of free men. And thus, ignored by me in the future. I have no time for such opinions.

Table Rock Arms

01-10-2011, 10:16 PM

The world is a dangerous place. No law will ever change that.

Dreaded Claymore

01-10-2011, 10:17 PM

Calatrava, everything you said makes sense. When I view your post in isolation, I agree with it. The thing that makes me disagree is when I ask myself, "What's the next step?" I think the next step is banning guns. I've seen evidence that suggests that such an action wouldn't save any lives. It is for this reason that I respectfully disagree with your view.

mordak6actual

01-10-2011, 10:18 PM

Huh. So much for personal responsibility.

BTW, see where the "no need for high-capacity magazines" train of thought got Bill Ruger.

PBRStreetgang

01-10-2011, 10:19 PM

I was in only one shoot out as LEO, and reloaded twice. When your heart is racing and the bullets flying, unless you are some cold blooded machine, it hard to hit anything. :) Now in the Military, maybe the range has something to do with it, but with my rifle I was accurate as all get out, and didn't need a lot of rounds.

Joe

01-10-2011, 10:21 PM

Disagree with the content, not the poster, please.

Why was my first post deleted. I didn't have any personal attacks or anything in it.

Amped

01-10-2011, 10:22 PM

I am with the OP guys, call me a libby all you want be he is right.

I also support the ban on all planes as well, I believe Boeing is to blame for 9/11, if they didn't make planes thousands of lifes would have been spared. Oh ban fingers as well, they pull the triggers on guns, hold onto knifes, steer cars and poke people, its for the childrenz now people

JeffM

01-10-2011, 10:26 PM

Disagree with the content, not the poster, please.

When such content is "galvanized" in the posters head, it's one and the same. The content speaks to the poster's character.

Again, shame on him for using the tragedy in AZ, cheapening the loss of life, to promote a political agenda.

I'll refrain from repeating the last line of my previous post.

speeedracerr

01-10-2011, 10:30 PM

The Mental State, Mind or State of Being of an individual which is considered a Danger not a high cap magazine or firearm.

Had Jared wanted to use a steak knife to carry out his murders should that be banned as well? Where do we draw the line?

Banning high cap magazines, guns etc. will not change the mental state of a person who intends to kill at will.

jpigeon

01-10-2011, 10:31 PM

"Those that would give up their liberty for a little security deserve neither."

Helpful_Cub

01-10-2011, 10:31 PM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

I hate to bring it up but this one was a lot like Columbine, it just happened outside instead of inside a school. Was the Congresswoman and Judge the intended targets? I have no idea but he picked that location for some reason. In Columbine the shooter carried multiple guns and so a magazine limit would not have stopped him. He also was legally not allowed to buy firearms because of his criminal background. That also didn't stop him. He also had a gun inside a school zone. Guess he didn't care about that law either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

I bring all of this up because criminals don't care about the laws. So by restricted anything, you're actually restricted the law abiding citizens that are focused on protecting themselves and their families. It you look long and hard at this event you can actually see how it was a law abiding citizens that stopped the crime by tackling the bad guy. If that citizen had followed the typical California guidance he should have turned tail and run as fast and far as possible and hope the police show up to take care of the situation. How many of those people would have died if no one stepped up to stop him? Police were no where near the event...

The question you should be asking is why did no one have a CCW there in the crowd that could have stopped him before he was able to get off so many gun shots and possibly save that little girl? By limiting our (law abiding citizens) ability to protect ourselves and families you just make it easier for those that don't give a damn about laws to take advantage of the situation.

Some Guy

01-10-2011, 10:32 PM

The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly," Lautenberg said.

You know, I agree with this.

Let's skip the politically correct word mincing, and come right out and acknowledge that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the right of the people to kill other people in defense of their liberty.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about deer hunting or target shooting. Magazine capacity restrictions make some sense when it comes to regulated hunting or tournament events. When it comes to the People retaining the power to resist tyranny, there is no possible defense of such restrictions.

This

Bhobbs

01-10-2011, 10:33 PM

What's the difference between a 30 round mag or 3 10s? If you start giving up stuff to feel safe where do you stop? Wrapped in bubble wrap and isolated?

Saigon1965

01-10-2011, 10:36 PM

This is the same mind set during the former bans - Lots of gun folks went along with the AW and the magazine bans - We only need "hunting" rifles not ARs -

barthel

01-10-2011, 10:36 PM

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

NiteQwill

01-10-2011, 10:38 PM

Come on guys... we should all agree.... ;) Really... all you need is one round of .45 ACP. Duh....

BlooDSMeaR

01-10-2011, 10:40 PM

Down with the fingers!!!!!! Ban them all!!!!!!! They are all to blame here.... Hi-caps, low caps , no cap sleds. No matter what a person has to use as a weapon, he/she will use it if he makes his mind up to use them..... Stop the fingers, every new born baby should have their fingers removed.... The rest of us get grandfathered in........

Synergy

01-10-2011, 10:44 PM

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload. You could also look at it as he lacked proper training.

Such as this technique with situational awareness. With training and multiple 10 rounds mags, a shooter could be more lethal than using 30 round mags.
P4xoMosvpuw

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

First off the antis want zero round magazines. They are not happy with 10 rounders. They want guns to vanish for civilians. Please don't speak for me I have my own mind and can make my own rational decisions.

nick

01-10-2011, 10:45 PM

The nature of a fundamental right is you don't have to justify the NEED to exercise it.

Sorry to hear about your bout of Stockholm syndrome, get well soon! :)

dexterbase

01-10-2011, 10:51 PM

I promise you that I could place more rounds on target EFFECTVELY with 5 round magazines than that idiot could have no matter what capacity his magazines were.

This is about rights.

You can't make killing people any more illegal than it already is.

Until you can figure out a way to keep idiots from killing people, low magazine capacity is the least effective way to save lives.

Dr Rockso

01-10-2011, 10:53 PM

The extreme analytical viewpoint:

Lets suppose that there's a federal magazine ban that mirrors California's. If you owned it prior to the ban you can keep it, but they can't be passed to your descendants nor transferred to any other individual.

What would actually change in that situation? On the positive side, deranged rampagers like Loughner might be mildly thwarted. Sure, high-capacity magazines would still exist on the prohibition markets, but your ordinary schitzophrenic isn't going to have ready access to that. With such a scenario, there would certainly be a shift in firearm designs for the civilian market. Given a 10-round constraint, customers would gravitate toward larger caliber offerings to make up for the loss of capacity. Future rampagers would likely be armed with those designs, which would probably be 10-round handguns in .45 ACP or similar. Also he might bring an additional gun to avoid the reload problem.

Stepping back, we know how rare incidents like Tuscon are. While you may add a slight or even moderate encumbrance for psychopathic gunmen, you're also adding a slight encumbrance to individuals who use guns for self-defense. Unlike a police officer, I'm unlikely to be wearing a bat-belt complete with readily accessible reloads in case of a gunfight...what I've got in the gun is what's available to me. While it's unlikely for any individual to use more than 10-rounds in an encounter, that handicap must be balanced with the even rarer case of the mass shooter...without having numbers to support my position, I'd imagine that the Loughner situations are heavily outweighed by the good-guy situations. I find it hard to imagine that police departments would have gravitated toward the .40 S&W round with handguns that allow them 12-15 rounds if they didn't perceive that to be an advantage in a defensive situation.

I really hate this idea that we should decide public policy in the wake of these shocking, high-profile incidents. The simple fact that these incidents are high-profile and shocking shows how rare they really are; ordinary events don't make international headlines. The simple fact is that nobody knows what would have been different about Saturday had the shooter not had access to 10+ round magazines.

msand951

01-10-2011, 10:57 PM

Dont agree.
In the hollywood shootout they had drums fired hundreds of rounds , yes civilians got hurt and leos but the only ones that died were the aholes. What happened in Arizona is terrible. But making highcaps illegal isnt going to keep them of the hands of criminals and the insane. They dont care about laws. But lawbiding citizens have to pay for the anti's false sense of security.
Im making my AR featureless tomorrow,Ill just have to reload more i guess.

Crazed_SS

01-10-2011, 11:01 PM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

Heh, you're ideas will not be popular around here, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Personally, I never really have much "need" for hicap mags. Of course, I dont "need" 405hp automobile either.. I like it though :)

If Im shooting pistols at the range, I usually only load 5 rounds at once. My friend has some pre-ban hicaps, and after about 13 shots, Im thinking to myself "Jesus.. how many more do I have to go?"

If Im shooting any of my rifles, it's usually 3-4 rounds at at time. The main reason I dislike 10-rounders in rifles is they're kinda hard to remove. Otherwise, it's no big deal.

For people do participate in shooting matches and those carbine training courses, I can imagine the lack of hicaps really takes the fun out of everything.

QQQ

01-10-2011, 11:11 PM

"shall not be infringed."

vintagearms

01-10-2011, 11:14 PM

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

Wow. Sheep come in all sizes and don't they?? :no:

CALATRAVA

01-10-2011, 11:17 PM

What's the difference between a 30 round mag or 3 10s? If you start giving up stuff to feel safe where do you stop? Wrapped in bubble wrap and isolated?

In my opinion, it's a rather simple yet profound difference.

If he fired 10 rounds, went to slide lock and got tackled because he lacked training to do this effectively, 21 bullets would not have been fired, if the situation were exactly the same.

CALATRAVA

01-10-2011, 11:23 PM

"shall not be infringed."

Oh, I'm aware of the ammendment and fully support this site, but I feel like this is one thing that does not infringe on anyone's right to defend themselves.

Like someone said earlier, most who are involved with IDPA, or simply effectively train on a daily basis would be lethal in a self-defense situation with much-maligned 10 rounders.

Amped

01-10-2011, 11:24 PM

In my opinion, it's a rather simple yet profound difference.

If he fired 10 rounds, went to slide lock and got tackled because he lacked training to do this effectively, 21 bullets would not have been fired, if the situation were exactly the same.

Wasn't there only 15-20 rounds fired? Regardless, the average person with some training can reload a revolver in mer seconds...how bad to you want it?

OP just because you are so quick to give up on your civil liberties, please don't paint me with that brush. I am fighting to keep the ones I have already

Dhena81

01-10-2011, 11:31 PM

I cannot believe what I just heard 1 guy out of 300,000 does some crazy stuff and now you think that its ok to have a restriction. I can't believe some of the stuff I've been hearing today I hate the damn shoulder thingy lady.

Dhena81

01-10-2011, 11:33 PM

Oh, I'm aware of the ammendment and fully support this site, but I feel like this is one thing that does not infringe on anyone's right to defend themselves.

Like someone said earlier, most who are involved with IDPA, or simply effectively train on a daily basis would be lethal in a self-defense situation with much-maligned 10 rounders.

It's not up to you weather or not 10 rounds are enough to defend myself with there's no magical number of rounds it takes.

freonr22

01-10-2011, 11:34 PM

its seems like there was more than one shooting/gun incident in the last 2 weeks, they kept publicising them until one stuck. What a waste for the lives lost, such a shame, my condolences to their families.

We are about to get screwed my friends.

NapaPlinker

01-10-2011, 11:37 PM

Regardlessly what law there is "preventing" people from obtaining large capacity magazines, they will always be in circulation. I know we don't need 30 rounds, I don't mind 10 either. But the fact is that criminals will always break the law, I doubt having a national ban on magazine capacities larger then 10 rounds will scare criminals in to throwing theirs away and not using them for a crime.

Chester

01-10-2011, 11:40 PM

In my opinion, it's a rather simple yet profound difference.

If he fired 10 rounds, went to slide lock and got tackled because he lacked training to do this effectively, 21 bullets would not have been fired, if the situation were exactly the same.

Granted it's only speculation on my part right now, but that's not necessarily true. The odds of a brand new Glock malfunctioning are pretty low and those high cap mags are apparently known to have feeding/extraction issues. Had he been using factory 15 (or 17, I don't know... I'm limited to 10 on mine) rounders, he'd probably have been able to swap new ones without any problems ad infinitum depending on how many fresh ones he had in his pocket.

Ironically, from what I'm gathering, his decision to use a high cap magazine is likely to have PREVENTED more injuries.

"Dupnik salutes a woman who grabbed the magazine as the alleged shooter inserted another magazine, which didn't fire because of a malfunctioning spring."

Also, don't paint me with that brush either. It says "... shall not be infringed."

Peter W Bush

01-10-2011, 11:40 PM

Ban 11+ round magazines? Wow.

Maybe we should ban muder! Then that guy REALLY wouldn't have been able to kill anybody at all!

Time to leave fantasy land buddy. Murder is a bigger crime here than buying a 30 round magazine. People still do it. Your post has no logic and it makes me angry that you and hilary think you can tell me how many rounds I "need."

Apocalypsenerd

01-10-2011, 11:42 PM

CALATRAVA:

Not too long ago I read a study that showed no statistically significant difference in the number of deaths that occured in shootings with more mag capacity than those without. The study used a 10 year sampling of crimes that occured after the Clinton ban, compared with those before the ban.

There were indications, nothing significant mind you, that less mag capacity might equal less death if the same restrictions were in place for a 30-40 year period. The statistics might become significant with a sampling in that span of time.

You forget, though, that repeat offenders commit most crime, and that they could care less about any laws. A mag restriction on them would do little, if anything, to save lives.

Your point of view also forgets that the right to bear arms is to keep power in the hands of the people.

I actually have a feeling that if the general population had only bolt action rifles, and the will to use them, that would be enough power.

Ideologically I feel that the government, as corrupt and incompetent as it is, should not have more power than civilians. I trust my unknown neighbors more than most government employees. Ideologically, we should be allowed automatics and most weapons advancements that have not made it to the LEO's yet.

To other posters:

I argue with the perception that the shooter in this instance was a bad shot. Out of 31 rounds, he hit 20 people at least once each. In a world where an LAPD member can shoot 8 times at an unarmed man and miss every time, one can only hope that other wackjobs like the one in Tucson aren't as effective as this latest wackjob.

Letitrip

01-10-2011, 11:43 PM

We need to stop blaming the gun or magazine. The shooter is the criminal that did it.

Remember that incident when that old man went through a farmers market in LA and killed many people? Do you think cars should be banned too? Or should that man simply not been behind the wheel? This is no different than the recent incident. That kid should not have had access to a gun and there are already laws in the books for that, and the old man that ran over all those people should not have been behind the wheel.

NightOwl

01-10-2011, 11:46 PM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

The limiting factor should have been armed citizens prepared to defend themselves in the viscinity. Nobody else had a gun, and it was fish in a barrel to the guy. Just one other armed person and it could have turned out quite differently.

Incidentally, the fact that he's slow at reloading is not relative to not having a use for normal (or high) capacity magazines. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJVoc5uJ2e4 Reloading quickly isn't hard. Next you're going to say that we need a bullet button on every firearm, right?

Furthermore, on the topic of his reloading, he was slow on the reload because he'd already been hit with a chair, and someone was holding on to his arm. Two men were wrestling him to the ground while a 3rd person (a woman) took the magazine he was attempting to reload. So, really, would a 10 round mag have made any difference? No, the differentiating factor was being hit with a chair and wrestling.

Also, I dispute your "most people agree that statistically" thing. I agree with no such thing. In a high stress situation, like trying to fend off an attempt on your life, you lose fine motor control, which could potentially cause you to need MORE rounds rather than less to hit your target (which may, also, be moving ducking hiding etc while shooting at you). Also, more threats could mean a viable need for more rounds (ie home invasion scenario). You never know what you'll find yourself in ahead of time, so being prepared is a good thing. Anyhow, my point being, show me reliable and verifiable statistics that I can check myself and I'll concede the point, if they're valid.

10 rounds is a number pulled out of a hat. Show me some real evidence that 10 is the ideal number of rounds, please. Oh, it doesn't exist, does it? That's a shame.

Texas Boy

01-10-2011, 11:53 PM

and if there were no firearms, no one would ever dream of filling a rental truck with fertilizer and kerosene and setting it off in front of a large building that included a day care....should we limit the size of trucks and how much fertilizer people can purchase?

Magazine limits are a slippery slope and a dangerous precedent. Crazy nut jobs will always exist, and there are plenty of common items they can use to commit horrible acts. You can't legislate the risk out of life...remember "people who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

divermon

01-10-2011, 11:53 PM

...let's worry about future legislation.

I think we can all agree that unreasonable tighting of gun laws are not what we want or thing is right for ourselves or the nation. (realizing that we have different definitions of "unreasonable")

What worries me is that there are an increasing number of editorials calling for what I consider unreasonable changes:

Of course, you or I could refute these arguements pretty effectively, but I am very concerned about how this might play politically in the months ahead.

Of course, there was none of this talk after the Ft. Hood shootings...amazing.

Thank you for posting those, I only read the third one, I'll read the other two tomorrow.

nobody_special

01-11-2011, 12:08 AM

I confess to briefly having the same thoughts as the OP, but after consideration I can't agree with the conclusion. Freedom requires the acceptance of some amount of risk by its nature.

Don't blame the weapon. Note the spate of mass murders in Chinese schools last year, all done with knives. (Anyone have links? I'm posting from a phone.)

HkFan416

01-11-2011, 12:11 AM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation.

And you speak from experience or what? Do you think those thugs there on the street are packing 10 round barney mags?

Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

No, actually. In the real world, drugs and or adrenaline can change the dynamic of a firefight very quickly. Someone loaded up on narcotics isn't going to be hampered much by 5 rounds of .38 special. Especially if his and your adrenaline is pumping. With circumstances like that, chances of your rounds not hitting on target are greater, that's why we're always encourage to know our backstop.

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

Where did you purchase your crystal ball at? Lets say he did have a 7 or 10 round magazine, what if all of the rounds fired from the mags proved to be fatal? Are we then to ban magazines no more than 5 rounds?

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

The thing about freedom is that you don't have the right to tell me what I can and can't have. If you are perfectly comfortable having only ten rounds mags, that's on you. I for one expect the worse in a defense scenario. I can't expect the other guy that robs me to play fair a nice by only using ten round magazines, I just can't do that.

And do you honestly expect that criminals will obey the law if this magazine ban goes into effect? You do know that murder is illegal correct? Did that stop this lunatic from performing such actions?

Connor P Price

01-11-2011, 12:20 AM

The glaring problem here is that even if a shooter would do less damage with a 10 round magazine, the law wont prevent him from carrying a greater than 10 round magazine. Criminals will use full capacity magazines either way, and 10 round magazine limits will only further hinder law abiding citizens from defending themselves against those criminals who would continue to carry normal capacity magazines.

cmth

01-11-2011, 12:24 AM

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines.

-B

I have not given you, nor anyone else, the right to negotiate my rights away. Nor will I ever. Any taking of my rights or property without my express, voluntary, uncoerced consent is an act of force and violence against me. Why are you initiating violence against me when I have not done any violence to you whatsoever? Why are you advocating violence against peaceful people? The man who committed violence in Tucson will get his retribution. I am not that man.

$P-Ritch$

01-11-2011, 12:29 AM

I confess to briefly having the same thoughts as the OP, but after consideration I can't agree with the conclusion. Freedom requires the acceptance of some amount of risk by its nature.

Don't blame the weapon. Note the spate of mass murders in Chinese schools last year, all done with knives. (Anyone have links? I'm posting from a phone.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_school_attacks

Here's the wiki on all the attacks last year in China. It looks like some of them were done with just common butcher cutlery.

What was china's response? Arm security guards with pitchforks and pepper spray, if the school could afford it. Then, censor all media of the events. Newscasts ignored it, forum entries and internet articles were deleted.

I also read somewhere else last year when all these attacks were happening that the government wanted to require a special permit for any knife over 8". I am sure that would make all the difference when these nutjobs are targeting kindergarteners.

zoglog

01-11-2011, 12:32 AM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

That's a very reasonable stance if you're assuming all that people care about on this board is self defense, which is not the case.

Many people on this board just love guns. They love shooting guns for all sorts of impractical purposes. That's their passion and they want to fight for that right.

On the flip side, some of those passionate people do tend to take their self defense claims a bit too far in order to justify their rationale when they should just lay it down as fun to unload a large magazine ;). Also I find the common claim that criminals will just get their stuff on the black market, which is true. However the ease of getting these type of items doesn't exactly make their jobs harder either. All gun control laws that are cited as examples of failures are BS as well because everyone knows damn well it has to be crackdown on the federal level to cut the supply for sure. We all know how prevalent rebuilds are in CA.

both sides are trying to create a perfect system in an imperfect environment to their own desires. What sickens me is all the immature rhetoric floating around from both sides rather than actual discussion.

arsilva32

01-11-2011, 12:34 AM

the fact is that you like all of them are putting the blame on the gun or high cap mags.the problem and the issue is the homicidal monster that did the shooting.he was bent on killing, he would have done it gun or no gun.he could of plowed his car into the crowd at 80 mph and killed more people, or made a fertilizer bomb and killed more people.(Oklahoma city bombing, rental truck and fertilizer,no guns used at all.) people died incl kids, should we ban rental trucks and fertilizer ? that would be absurd wouldn't it. if you keep letting your rights get taken away little by little,soon you will have none.why should we have to pay for what this maniac did? i personally think this monster should be executed post haste,any other outcome would show a lack of value on human life. commit the ultimate crime, pay the ultimate price.

hellraiser

01-11-2011, 12:34 AM

Fear is a hell of a thing...

Its sad how the media can take a tragedy and scare people into handing over there rights. The things our forefathers were willing to fight and die for can now be taken away by saying boo.

freonr22

01-11-2011, 12:36 AM

Fear is a hell of a thing...

Its sad how the media cancontrolled by anti's, will take a tragedy and use it for their agenda scare people into handing over there rights. The things our forefathers were willing to fight and die for can now be taken away by saying boo.
like I mentioned earlier... they keep throwing stuff on the wall and see what sticks

zoglog

01-11-2011, 12:40 AM

Fear is a hell of a thing...

Its sad how the media can take a tragedy and scare people into handing over there rights. The things our forefathers were willing to fight and die for can now be taken away by saying boo.

That's amusing, liberals use the same argument for invasion of privacy laws and invasion of countries.

I guess you guys are more alike than you think :D

hellraiser

01-11-2011, 12:49 AM

That's amusing, liberals use the same argument for invasion of privacy laws and invasion of countries.

I guess you guys are more alike than you think :D

Something being twisted to fit a agenda? That sort of thing never happens!:o

ALSystems

01-11-2011, 12:51 AM

I cannot believe what I just heard 1 guy out of 300,000 does some crazy stuff and now you think that its ok to have a restriction.
I can't believe this either! :no:

Is UK any safer today with all these bans?
Just the opposite from what I've read.

Think about all the gun restrictions in CA
Does this make CA safer than other states without these restrictions?

By the way you might want to check Japan's statistics. It flows both ways.

elSquid

01-11-2011, 12:52 AM

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

Statisically speaking, you are unlikely to ever need to use your gun in a defensive situation.

In light of that, why should you be allowed to CCW, or for that matter, own a gun?

-- Michael

hefedehefe

01-11-2011, 12:57 AM

:lurk5:

freonr22

01-11-2011, 1:00 AM

Statisically speaking, you are unlikely to ever need to use your gun in a defensive situation.

In light of that, why should you be allowed to CCW, or for that matter, own a gun?

-- Michael
to protect the government from itself

ALSystems

01-11-2011, 1:13 AM

I was in only one shoot out as LEO, and reloaded twice. When your heart is racing and the bullets flying, unless you are some cold blooded machine, it hard to hit anything. :)
I agree.

In theory, you should need need only one shot per attacker. Should we limit all guns to single shot then? ;) Of course none of the BGs will follow these rules. You might as well shot yourself in the foot a few times just to even the odds.

Instead we should put limits on how many people can attack a single victum. No sneaking around from behind either. :)

Reality is something completely different. I've read that in these high stress conditions, you might miss completely 3 out 4 shots and some of the hits might not stop an attack. A 10-round magazine seems inadequate then.

ALSystems

01-11-2011, 1:21 AM

By the way you might want to check Japan's statistics. It flows both ways.
Not a valid comparison.

Japan is too different in many ways from the U.S. The U.K. and Australia are a lot closer.

For statistics on their rising crime rate after the strict gun control laws see:
http://www.gunfacts.info/

tonelar

01-11-2011, 1:35 AM

The average car doesn't need a spare tire in 50,000 miles of driving. How about dropping off your spare and driving around without one?
Statistically, that move makes perfect sense.
Is it a smart idea?

An individual will more than likely have to defend themselves and/or their families on their own, while Military and Police get the benefit of their squads and partners. If these professionals need fully loaded weapons, so do we all.

ccwtrainer

01-11-2011, 1:49 AM

I completely agree with those who have posted that more good people carrying guns would have done a much better job of limiting casualties, than a limit on the capacity of magazines.

jshoebot

01-11-2011, 2:00 AM

You don't have the right to tell me what I need or don't need.

What if your mother was defending herself from an attacker, and using a 10 round magazine? What if she misses with the first ten shots? I'd be willing to bet that she'd rather have 17 rounds to defend herself. Possibly even 33.

CnCFunFactory

01-11-2011, 2:05 AM

Generally speaking I try to avoid this type of drivel but lets examine something. Lets say the ten round ban was already in effect. This idiot that killed all these people chose his tools for this job for a reason. If all that was available to him was 10 rounders and he expected to have a need to fire 30 he would have simply practiced reloading or brought 2 more guns to the fight. People would still be dead. Banning or limiting number of rounds or magazines wouldn't have changed the outcome.

tonelar

01-11-2011, 2:15 AM

You don't have the right to tell me what I need or don't need...

+1

However you do have the right to defend yourself poorly. Good luck with that.

RobG

01-11-2011, 2:33 AM

The OP's thinking and post just goes to show how easily people can be swayed into giving away their rights. The high profiles of those shot are what's keeping this incident in the news. People are shot everyday somewhere in America. Open your eyes.

kel-tec-innovations

01-11-2011, 2:58 AM

You mean regular capacity magazine?

C.W.M.V.

01-11-2011, 3:12 AM

...I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines....

Ban this fool please? I'm glad hes decided what is good for everyone else.

:mad:

the_quark

01-11-2011, 3:25 AM

Furthermore, on the topic of his reloading, he was slow on the reload because he'd already been hit with a chair, and someone was holding on to his arm. Two men were wrestling him to the ground while a 3rd person (a woman) took the magazine he was attempting to reload. So, really, would a 10 round mag have made any difference? No, the differentiating factor was being hit with a chair and wrestling.

I think this fundamentally misses OP's point. He was stopped during a point when he was trying to reload. Between beginning to shoot, and reloading, he shot twenty people. I think it is very hard to argue with the basic logic, "if he'd only fired ten shots before the reload event, he only would've shot at most ten people before he was forced to reload, at which point he would've been tackled by bystanders and the shooting stopped."

Furthermore, I've read a number of pro-2nd Amendment commentators say things like "Well, yeah, but he could've practiced reloading and kept going indefinitely." The fact is, he was ineffectual in reloading. That he could've been better than he was is not a convincing argument for our side.

Now, I do think there is one interesting point, if you actually care about the truth (not, frankly, that most people seem especially concerned with it). If you read this article:

Which, puzzlingly, labels the woman who wrestled an "empty magazine" from the shooter as having prevented more deaths, it notes:

At a press conference earlier, Mr Dupnik said that, after Ms Maisch tore the [empty] ammunition magazine from the gunman's hand, he pulled out another and reloaded the weapon.

"Fortunately, the spring in the magazine failed, and two gentlemen were able to get it away from him and subdue him until the law enforcement people arrived," Mr Dupnik said.

I've read and thought a lot about what happened, and I think this is the timeline:

Mr. Loughner shoots Ms. Giffords. He then begins firing very quickly, at point-blank range, at everyone around him, emptying his 31-round magazine extremely quickly - so quickly that Mr. Zamudio, armed in Walgreens next door, is unable to run to the scene before the shooting has ended. He hits 20, which, as I understand it, is an above-average hit rate for someone shooting in a situation like this (implying he's been practicing).

Once he empties that magazine, he removes the empty, inserts a new one, and hits the slide release. In other words, physically, he completed a reload maneuver. However, the magazine failed to feed properly. I'm unclear if this means a mis-feed (in which he ends up with cartridges blocking the action of the weapon), or if it simply did nothing - he hit the slide release, but no cartridge entered the action.

Regardless, after this reload action, the shooter is in a situation in which the weapon must be at least recycled, and and most have a jam cleared. While he's attempting to perform this maneuver, he's tackled by bystanders and wrestled to the ground.

In other words, his (notoriously unreliable) 30-round magazine may have resulted in his weapon failing to reload properly, allowing him to be tackled, and stopping the carnage. It's quite possible he could've stood there swapping reliable ten-rounders all day and killed a lot more people.

Which gets to my bottom line - life is far too complicated to make blanket statements like "if he'd had only ten-round magazines" fewer people would've died. It's quite possible more people would've, because they would've been more reliable. Or, as someone else noted, maybe he would've gone with a .45. Given his kill rate (and the description of Ms. Gifford's injuries) I suspect he was using ball ammunition. Even if he were stopped after ten shots of .45 ACP, I suspect his kill ratio would've been much higher - perhaps even killing more people than he did in our reality.

I think our best arguments against a high-capacity (or, if the antis are smart, an "extended capacity") ban have to do with freedom; with the 2nd Amendment; with the impossibility of actually banning the things; with the real-world complexity of being unable to know how the law of unintended consequences would've affected the shooter's behavior with such a ban. Just saying "Well, he could've practiced reloading and killed a bunch of people with ten-rounders" isn't a very effective argument in this case, and, frankly, this case is going to make that argument very difficult to successfully make in future cases. Make no mistake, Mr. Loughner has (among his other more heinous crimes) made it much hard to argue that magazine size is irrelevant in these sorts of mass-shootings. That doesn't mean we should ban them, but it does mean we shouldn't be making poor arguments to support our position.

SarcoBlaster

01-11-2011, 3:30 AM

...that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines.
I'm fine if you feel that you don't need them, but who the **** are you to tell me what I need or don't need?

Another oxygen thief placed on my ignore list.

the_quark

01-11-2011, 3:43 AM

I completely agree with those who have posted that more good people carrying guns would have done a much better job of limiting casualties, than a limit on the capacity of magazines.

I'm not actually so sure that more good guys with guns would've made this any better. I believe Mr. Loughner emptied his pistol basically as fast as he could. I also think this was an event at which your average carrier isn't generally going be on high alert. Maybe someone could've recognized the threat; parsed what was going on; drawn, gotten a bead on Loughner (perhaps especially difficult in a very crowded situation with no backstop and people running and diving for cover), and taken a good shot in the time it took the bad guy to empty his magazine. That's even assuming our hypothetical good guy takes no steps to find cover or otherwise try to protect himself during this.

Even if there had been someone closer with a gun, it's hard for me to imagine your average carrier stopping it substantially faster than the heroes without guns did. I do think in a lot of these situations "a good guy with a gun" can substantially shorten them, but in this particular situation, I don't think it would've made much difference.

Carnivore

01-11-2011, 4:05 AM

Sounds great in theory but what about multiple assailants? Jewelry store owner that has 4 guys come in to the rob the place....bank hold up any number of scenarios. North Hollywood shoot out come to mind? what if the bad guys have body armor and you figure it out to late and you have used up your 10 rounds? When you start out with a thought that you truly have NO KNOWLEDGE of AT ALL then anything sounds good coming from a "expert" but the world just doesn't fit so neatly in to a cookie cutter. Think outside the box..and CNN and MSNBC.

Besides zombies come in packs and 10 rounds just won't get the job done.

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 5:57 AM

A few have touched on the crux of the argument but I want to emphasize it.

Frankly, if you've got multiple attackers you simply aren't going to have a big enough magazine.

I think it was yesterday that we were told a story wherein a LEO perceived that he was being attacked and a total of 25 shots were fired with only 12 hitting a pickup truck and apparently none hitting either of the occupants. No particular reason to believe that the LEO's were bad shots.

Some guy (I think in NYC) got shot over 20 times by cops and was still expected to live. While I happily acknowledge that the point of the shooting is not to kill, the point I'm trying to make is that the cops were presumably not trying to kill him but perceived that they had not stopped the perp until he had over 20 bullet holes in him. So 20 bullets were not enough to stop him and a 15 round magazine is more than is required?

If you are ever in a firefight you'll realize that you really don't have enough ammo in that magazine. You never have enough. . .

That said, I sorta doubt that my CCW pistol will ever have a magazine with a capacity of over 10 rounds. Concealability tends to limit such. Maybe 12 rounds someday, but who knows. But if someone else wants to try to conceal a 30 rounder - more power to them!

Oh, and to those who wanted a CCWer to be in the crowd and plug the BG? In a crowd you can bet that any stray rounds (or bullets which overpenetrate) are going to hit someone (notice how many victims Loughner got and no reason to believe he is a firearms expert?). Even if you are armed, in a crowd it might be better to tackle the bad guy.

Edit: Anyone notice that LEO's don't carry small capacity firearms anymore? That's because they've done studies which demonstrate that if they don't want to get killed they need more rounds between reloads. So they almost invariably LOC handguns with "high capacity" magazines. They don't do that because that allows them to slaughter crowds of bystanders - but because in a firefight with BG's they need that capacity - and so do we.

Further edit: I should clarify. 10 round magazine in the CCW pistol and probably no more than that in the near future. But I want 15-17 rounders in my magazine holster.

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 7:27 AM

Fear is a hell of a thing...

Its sad how the media can take a tragedy and scare people into handing over there rights. The things our forefathers were willing to fight and die for can now be taken away by saying boo.

That's the crux of my opinion. I don't feel like I'm handing over my right to bear arms, simply because I have 10 rounders rather than 30s.

And please, stop with the car analogies(not you, Hellraiser). This guy didn't choose a car, nor do most people bent on destruction. He chose a gun, with the highest capacity and killing power possible. He didn't buy his gun and mags on the black market...He bought them at a commercial gun store.

msand951

01-11-2011, 7:30 AM

The Arizona incident in now the new anti gun poster child basically.
And people are jumping on that bandwagon.

U2BassAce

01-11-2011, 7:33 AM

In my opinion, it's a rather simple yet profound difference.

If he fired 10 rounds, went to slide lock and got tackled because he lacked training to do this effectively, 21 bullets would not have been fired, if the situation were exactly the same.

I wonder the difference in CQB situation a long unweilding 33 round magazine is in reloading? Seems like it would make reloading quickly tougher and give intended targets the opportunity to grab it that much easier. Those magazines are big and clumsy.

MudCamper

01-11-2011, 7:55 AM

Shooting accurately under stress is extremely difficult, for us sane people. The adrenaline will destroy our fine motor skill. We will miss a lot.

Now the cool collected sociopath may not have this problem, as demonstrated by the recent shooting, but most of us will.

Add to this the fact that most gun shot wounds don't put you down. You bleed to death in 20-30 minutes. To stop an attacker, you likely will need several hits.

Add to this that it is quite common for thugs to attack in groups.

You (the OP) may be fine with a 10 rounder, but since I live in the real world, give me as many rounds as is physically possible, that you very much.

Glock_Toter

01-11-2011, 7:56 AM

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

Exactly :D

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 7:57 AM

That's the crux of my opinion. I don't feel like I'm handing over my right to bear arms, simply because I have 10 rounders rather than 30s.
.
.
.

You have a right to your opinion, but I'm kinda curious as to why 10 is the magic number? Why not 9 or 11? Maybe 8 or 12?

I'd like to say that the choice of 10 is arbitrary, but honestly, I think the reason why the magazine "ban" in Kalifornia uses 10 rounds as the limit is simply because we use a base 10 numbering system. If we used a base 12 numbering system we'd have a 12 round limit.

Frankly, if you really get into it, an arbitrary limit like this is logically indefensible. I mean, if you're trying to limit killing power then maybe a .22 magazine should have a 40 round limit and a .45 magazine should have a 1 round limit (everyone knows that one shot from a .45 is all it takes)?

Setting a limit as to the number of rounds per magazine is arbitrary at best.

Billy Jack

01-11-2011, 7:59 AM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

CALATRAVA, I have your back on this. No legislator is going to carry water on 'the right to possess high capacity magazines'. It is a dead issue people, man up to that. You will see legislation passed to restrict possession and sale of high capacity magazines to civilians. It will be Federal and the NRA will be silent on this one or offer only tepid opposition.

Members need only read sources other than firearm sites to see the mood of the country on this issue.

You 'anything goes' under the 2nd Amendment people need to smell the coffee. You can beat up on CALATRAVA and people like me as much as your personality requires but it will not change the circumstances. Change is in the wind.
http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'

www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

goodlookin1

01-11-2011, 8:09 AM

Oh, I'm aware of the ammendment and fully support this site, but I feel like this is one thing that does not infringe on anyone's right to defend themselves.

Like someone said earlier, most who are involved with IDPA, or simply effectively train on a daily basis would be lethal in a self-defense situation with much-maligned 10 rounders.

Once again, as another poster stated earlier, the Second Amendment is not just for self defense. It seems your conclusion is based on the idea that this is solely what the 2A is for.

It is primarily for the citizens to protect against a tyrannical government, along with arming a military. Now if the gov has more firepower than the citizens, how are we able to protect against a tyrannical gov? Do you want to be limited to 10 rounds if it ever came to this?

Again, limiting LAW ABIDING citizens does nothing to limit LAW BREAKERS.

Your conclusion is completely flawed based on the misunderstanding of the main purpose of the 2A, and uses the same logical as the anti's arguments. More "feel good" aint good.

MudCamper

01-11-2011, 8:11 AM

To all the cowards/traitors who want to roll over and surrender their high-caps, you do realize that the ban won't just be on pistols, right? They'll ban rifle mags too. And don't you realize that it would only be as effective as all other gun control - that it will only prevent you and me from owning them, not the criminals nor the state's police forces? Have you people lost your minds?

oddball

01-11-2011, 8:20 AM

It is amazing that this is the only gun forum where this kind of thinking exists.
"Kooky Kalifornia Gun Owners at it again".

The Zumbos have reared their ugly heads once again :mad:. Absolutely amazing.

.

oddball

01-11-2011, 8:21 AM

Have you people lost your minds?

Apparently so :(.

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 8:24 AM

CALATRAVA, I have your back on this. No legislator is going to carry water on 'the right to possess high capacity magazines'. It is a dead issue people, man up to that. You will see legislation passed to restrict possession and sale of high capacity magazines to civilians. It will be Federal and the NRA will be silent on this one or offer only tepid opposition.

Members need only read sources other than firearm sites to see the mood of the country on this issue.

You 'anything goes' under the 2nd Amendment people need to smell the coffee. You can beat up on CALATRAVA and people like me as much as your personality requires but it will not change the circumstances. Change is in the wind.
http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'

www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

I'm sorry, but on this one I figured you should be joking and that at the end you'd have changed it to read, "The Farce is strong with this one"

I just have difficulty with the idea that Billy Jack would actually be thinking this way.

And yes, I do believe in paying attention to political reality, but buying into arbitrary lunacy along with CALATRAVA is just too much for me.

deebix

01-11-2011, 8:27 AM

if they honestly think that by simply passing a dictatorial ban on magazines, people will turn them all in, then we have the stupidest population in the world. I hope everyone here remains eternally vigilant. Like hell I'm giving any of my privately owned property to the Gestapo. This aint ***** england or australia.

zhyla

01-11-2011, 8:35 AM

I don't think small arms policy should be decided on isolated tragedies like this. Something like 14,000 people were murdered in 2008, mostly one or two at a time. Their deaths are no less tragic than this shooting.

Helpful_Cub

01-11-2011, 8:38 AM

That's the crux of my opinion. I don't feel like I'm handing over my right to bear arms, simply because I have 10 rounders rather than 30s.

And please, stop with the car analogies(not you, Hellraiser). This guy didn't choose a car, nor do most people bent on destruction. He chose a gun, with the highest capacity and killing power possible. He didn't buy his gun and mags on the black market...He bought them at a commercial gun store.

So if you are forced to have a 10-round magazine instead of a 30 round magazine you don't "feel" like you have your rights taken away.

Ok so think about how that could also be applied. How about you have Free Speech but only on Mondays. The rest of the time you must be a mute and if you talk you will spend 1 year in jail. You still have Free Speech, I never took it away, I just limited you on when and where its appropriate. So where does it stop.

When you start giving up your rights, even those you don't exercise, you start to limit what you can and cannot do. Do I own a 30 round handgun magazines? No, its highly impractical for all of the shooting I do. Do I want to own one for my AR-15, oh God yes! But by buying one and bringing it into California for use I would instantly become a Bad Guy. Did I hurt anyone? I pay my taxes, support education, support or troops, invest in the arts, and even recycle. But that doesn't matter in the eyes of the law because I had the right to something as simple as a factory sized magazine taken away.

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 8:47 AM

Once again, as another poster stated earlier, the Second Amendment is not just for self defense. It seems your conclusion is based on the idea that this is solely what the 2A is for.

It is primarily for the citizens to protect against a tyrannical government, along with arming a military. Now if the gov has more firepower than the citizens, how are we able to protect against a tyrannical gov? Do you want to be limited to 10 rounds if it ever came to this?

Again, limiting LAW ABIDING citizens does nothing to limit LAW BREAKERS.

Your conclusion is completely flawed based on the misunderstanding of the main purpose of the 2A, and uses the same logical as the anti's arguments. More "feel good" aint good.

You're right. Protection from a tyrannical government is not something I fear on a daily basis, but is something I believe the 2a does seek to afford protection from.

And we'll have to agree to disagree that having restrictions on commercial, gun store sales of high cap magazines would limit the supply to most people.

Handguns with 10rd mags is something that I think California is just going to have to live with, and I think my energy is best spent fighting for other things such as shall-issue CCW, and an end to the "safe gun" list, both of which DO in fact infringe on someone's fundamental ability to protect themselves/their family.

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 8:51 AM

.
.
.
Handguns with 10rd mags is something that I think California is just going to have to live with, and I think my energy is best spent fighting for other things such as shall-issue CCW, and an end to the "safe gun" list, both of which DO in fact infringe on someone's fundamental ability to protect themselves/their family.

I'm glad you're concentrating your efforts where you are. That's the right thing to do - especially since the fix is already in for gutting the "ban" on 10+ round magazines in California.

As best I can tell, it would take new federal laws to try to stop 10+ round magazines for California - and the idea that one paranoid schizophrenic in Arizona gets to effectively determine magazine policies for the nation is a little out there.

Untamed1972

01-11-2011, 8:55 AM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

you are entitled to your opinion.....you are not entitled to subject others to your opinion, especially one with is largely based on emotion and speculation.

Volksgrenadier

01-11-2011, 9:10 AM

"There are still people in my party who believe in consensus politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors... I mean it."

-Margaret Thatcher-

If there are those who desire to never possess a magazine that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition, then by all means purchase only restricted feeding devices. Keep your restricted magazines clean and well cared for. Fire only ten rounds at a time before reloading. And all the while I hope that you are positively aglow with your choice of purchase. I, for one, shall never attempt to remove or limit your choice of a ten shot magazine. We can laugh and debate polymer vs steel mags, which ammo feeds best, and drop free reliability.

However, in this spirit of liberty, I expect- no, rather I demand, the exact same courtesy and respect for my freedom of choice, in the purchase, possession, and use of magazines that are not restricted.

Your opinion, sir, is your own, and I respect it. However, the opinion of one citizen does not warrant the removal or limitation of the liberty of another. I would also remind my fellows here in this forum, regardless of opinion on the issue, that we are opposed by a well funded, politically savvy, and media supported enemy, who seeks not merely the restriction of magazines, but the incremental destruction of the entire 2nd Amendment. They despise us and make no bones about that opinion.

So I would suggest that now is not the time for any divisions among our ranks. Until you are disarmed, serial numbered, speaking New Speak, proclaiming how "Double Plus Good" Chairperson Pelosi is doing, and singing the Internationale before boarding mass transit, our enemies will never cease.

That bastard madman in Tucson murdered and wounded a group of citizens, and for this he will answer. He did NOT, however, murder our civil liberties.

My $.02 for the little it is worth.

JDoe

01-11-2011, 9:13 AM

CALATRAVA, I have your back on this. No legislator is going to carry water on 'the right to possess high capacity magazines'. It is a dead issue people, man up to that. You will see legislation passed to restrict possession and sale of high capacity magazines to civilians. It will be Federal and the NRA will be silent on this one or offer only tepid opposition.

Members need only read sources other than firearm sites to see the mood of the country on this issue.

You 'anything goes' under the 2nd Amendment people need to smell the coffee. You can beat up on CALATRAVA and people like me as much as your personality requires but it will not change the circumstances. Change is in the wind.
http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'

www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

You hold Carolynn "it's the shoulder thing that goes up" McCarthy up as some proof that "change is in the wind? Really?

I'm sorry, but on this one I figured you should be joking and that at the end you'd have changed it to read, "The Farce is strong with this one"

I just have difficulty with the idea that Billy Jack would actually be thinking this way.

And yes, I do believe in paying attention to political reality, but buying into arbitrary lunacy along with CALATRAVA is just too much for me.

Me too.

violator22348

01-11-2011, 9:13 AM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

Agreed. We won two wars (I, II) with G.I.'s who were armed with at first bolt-action 5-shot rifles, 6-shot revolvers, and 7-shot 1911's. When I go to the range, I never see anyone with a pre-ban 33 round mag. It's a waste of ammo, a pain in the *** to load, and paints this weird image of wannabe -tactical.

This guy Loughner, specifically selected (at least that we know of ) two 33-round mags. Think of that. We might have been looking at 66 dead people murdered in less than a minute if this guy had been a trained shooter and no one had stopped him.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment is not a 'needs' based right. You or I should not have to argue that we 'need' guns. Ownership is a right. That's settled. But there is no right for a single individual to put at risk 66 others because of his desire for extended magazines.

Ultimately, I would support staying with the 10-round mags.

This will get very ugly in Congress. Can you imagine if this had happened before the November elections, with the Donkeys in full control of both houses? We'd be looking at outright bans. Pro-gunners need to look at pre-empting the anti's, and fast.

Immediate example from today:

"The revelation about the shooter's high-capacity magazines led one longtime Senate gun control advocate, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., to announce plans to re-establish a prohibition that lapsed in 2004 on magazines that feed more than 10 rounds at a time."

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 9:15 AM

you are entitled to your opinion.....you are not entitled to subject others to your opinion, especially one with is largely based on emotion and speculation.

You're right, that statement is problematic. It's not meant as a condescending remark and I definitely didn't mean to offend anyone.

A better way to put what I meant, might be,

"You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that American gun-owners would not be ill-prepared to defend themselves if deprived of high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I."

It's a counterpoint argument to the standard, "Without high capacity magazines, our rights are being infringed" bantor that is common on this website. I am simply stepping out of line, saying I disagree with this.

goodlookin1

01-11-2011, 9:22 AM

You're right. Protection from a tyrannical government is not something I fear on a daily basis, but is something I believe the 2a does seek to afford protection from.

Then how can you support your conclusion? Even though you (and I) dont worry about this on a daily basis, history has proven that it happens quite frequently and is happening right now in other areas of the world. Tyranny never dies....it is only suppressed.

And we'll have to agree to disagree that having restrictions on commercial, gun store sales of high cap magazines would limit the supply to most people.

How so? I can go out and buy 30 rounders "disassembled" right now and am forced to dumb it down to 10 rounds because the govt doesnt trust me. Im not breaking the law by doing this. What's keeping all those criminals from buying these rebuild kits and building 30 rounders? The 10 round limit does not concern them. So your premise that the 10 round mag restriction would stop the every day citizen from getting their hands on 10+ rounders is unfounded. It's so easy, a caveman could do it.

Handguns with 10rd mags is something that I think California is just going to have to live with, and I think my energy is best spent fighting for other things such as shall-issue CCW, and an end to the "safe gun" list, both of which DO in fact infringe on someone's fundamental ability to protect themselves/their family.

How is the "safe gun" list any different in this situation? How does it restrict one's ability to defend oneself? There are other guns that people can choose from to defend themselves. How do you apply the logic of supporting the hi-cap mag ban to the safe gun list? There's no logic in either of them.

Please dont take any of this as an attack on you personally. This is all towards your ideology on gun ownership and the "reasonable restrictions" you espouse.

violator22348

01-11-2011, 9:26 AM

Once again, as another poster stated earlier, the Second Amendment is not just for self defense. It seems your conclusion is based on the idea that this is solely what the 2A is for.

It is primarily for the citizens to protect against a tyrannical government, along with arming a military. Now if the gov has more firepower than the citizens, how are we able to protect against a tyrannical gov?

Are you joking or sleeping? The second amendment was written at a time when 'the government' had .75 caliber Brown Besses, ....and we had .75 caliber Brown Besses.....news flash: that equality lasted to about 1830

You think that ANY WEAPON you can legally get your hands on will enable you to defend yourself against a tyrannical government?

FACT: You have access to small arms, up to approximately .50 caliber (depending on what state you're in).....stack up all the 33 round mags you want. THAT'S IT.

FACT:If they can't dig you out of your bunker, the local Army unit will. They'll drive right over your *** with a frickin Bradley.

....you" we're gonna fight 'em types" annoy the hell out of me. This ain't Red Dawn. Our Government became way more powerful than any/all of us over a century ago.

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 9:27 AM

Agreed. We won two wars (I, II) with G.I.'s who were armed with at first bolt-action 5-shot rifles, 6-shot revolvers, and 7-shot 1911's. When I go to the range, I never see anyone with a pre-ban 33 round mag. It's a waste of ammo, a pain in the *** to load, and paints this weird image of wannabe -tactical.
.
.
.[/I]

Wow! You really need to go back and study history.

Do you forget that we had machine guns? Do you forget the Thompson submachine gun? Do you forget that we switched to the M16 in large part so that we could use higher capacity magazines and carry more ammo?

Just try to find infantrymen who would prefer to have a reliable 10 round magazine in their M4 rather than a reliable 30 rounder? Maybe there are very specialized circumstances where they might - but not in your average MOUT environment or in most terrains for that matter.

To ignore that as the technology has improved that they have increased the magazine size because that was a tactical improvement is not intellectually defensible.

Ignoring the fact that almost no LEA has a 5-shot revolver as their standard issue firearm is to ignore the fact that a higher magazine capacity is considered desirable for survival purposes.

Whatever you may think of the political situation, I guarandamntee you that if we roll over on magazine size they will keep coming back to limit every other aspect of our RKBA.

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 9:29 AM

Are you joking or sleeping? The second amendment was written at a time when 'the government' had .75 caliber Brown Besses, ....and we had .75 caliber Brown Besses.....news flash: that equality lasted to about 1830

You think that ANY WEAPON you can legally get your hands on will enable you to defend yourself against a tyrannical government?

FACT: You have access to small arms, up to approximately .50 caliber (depending on what state you're in).....stack up all the 33 round mags you want. THAT'S IT.

FACT:If they can't dig you out of your bunker, the local Army unit will. They'll drive right over your *** with a frickin Bradley.

....you" we're gonna fight 'em types" annoy the hell out of me. This ain't Red Dawn. Our Government became way more powerful than any/all of us over a century ago.

You really don't understand modern and irregular warfare. I'd recommend you not pontificate on it.

robcoe

01-11-2011, 9:33 AM

OP, I have to disagree with you on this. Not so much because your information is wrong on the number of rounds used in a SD situation(your probably right about that), but because I believe that if you start passing reactionary laws based on the actions of 1 nutball your giving that person exactly what they want, power over how everyone else lives.

Being free is not for the timid, having freedom entails having a distinct lack of safety. Yes banning larger capacity magazines might reduce the number of people hurt in 1 out of 10,000 shootings, and it might seem like a worthwhile trade off now, but these things never stop. The mantra of safety has already cost us to much of our freedom. Since 9/11 we have given up our right not to be searched without a warrant and not be shoved in prison without trial for the rest of our lives, all in the name of protecting ourselves from an overblown threat. We need to stop caving into terrorists(that's what this idiot was, probably crazy also) or else we will look back and realize that Orwell was only off by a few years.

RobG

01-11-2011, 9:35 AM

It's a counterpoint argument to the standard, "Without high capacity magazines, our rights are being infringed" bantor that is common on this website. I am simply stepping out of line, saying I disagree with this.

Basically you are "pre-caving" in to what you fear may happen. Its the same as certain organizations "pre-caving" in to AW bans, "safe handgun" lists, etc. If you really think "giving a little" (eg, giving up/not fighting for standard capacity mags) to the gov't is going to somehow appease them, think again. They do not want you to have any weapons whatsoever. And if they could, they would ban all of them. They just know that it is not possible.

violator22348

01-11-2011, 9:35 AM

I can respect your opinion, but I disagree. This is one situation where (potentially) a 10 round magazine could of slowed the aggressor, saving lives. On the flip side if he only had 10 rounders he may have become very proficient in reloading. Say he had 5 magazines on him and took out more people... With your logic more people "may" have been saved because he had a 30 round mag, and had to reload. I think we can't blame the object he used to cause destruction, but blame the person. He easily could of used an 18 wheeler and driven through the wall and killed more people. No one would blame the vehicle, but use a gun and the gun is the problem. Again I can respect your opinion, but disagree.

Respectfully, your is a non-sequitor argument. One cannot conceal an 18-wheel truck and position themselves behind a Congresswoman.

This guy was the equivalent of a typical Muslim suicide bomber.

robcoe

01-11-2011, 9:36 AM

Are you joking or sleeping? The second amendment was written at a time when 'the government' had .75 caliber Brown Besses, ....and we had .75 caliber Brown Besses.....news flash: that equality lasted to about 1830

You think that ANY WEAPON you can legally get your hands on will enable you to defend yourself against a tyrannical government?

FACT: You have access to small arms, up to approximately .50 caliber (depending on what state you're in).....stack up all the 33 round mags you want. THAT'S IT.

FACT:If they can't dig you out of your bunker, the local Army unit will. They'll drive right over your *** with a frickin Bradley.

....you" we're gonna fight 'em types" annoy the hell out of me. This ain't Red Dawn. Our Government became way more powerful than any/all of us over a century ago.

I am sure the Russians said something similar rolling into Afghanistan. Or the US army into Vietnam, or Afganistan, or Iraq.

Hopalong

01-11-2011, 9:38 AM

There are lots of people, living in caves in certain parts of he world, that understand irregular warfare.

RobG

01-11-2011, 9:46 AM

Come to think of it, I say ban Glocks. I don't see other semi auto pistols with 33 round mags. Why just the mag? That pistol must go!

violator22348

01-11-2011, 9:47 AM

Wow! You really need to go back and study history.

Do you forget that we had machine guns? Do you forget the Thompson submachine gun? Do you forget that we switched to the M16 in large part so that we could use higher capacity magazines and carry more ammo?

Just try to find infantrymen who would prefer to have a reliable 10 round magazine in their M4 rather than a reliable 30 rounder? Maybe there are very specialized circumstances where they might - but not in your average MOUT environment or in most terrains for that matter.

To ignore that as the technology has improved that they have increased the magazine size because that was a tactical improvement is not intellectually defensible.

Ignoring the fact that almost no LEA has a 5-shot revolver as their standard issue firearm is to ignore the fact that a higher magazine capacity is considered desirable for survival purposes.

Whatever you may think of the political situation, I guarandamntee you that if we roll over on magazine size they will keep coming back to limit every other aspect of our RKBA.

I know my history better than you apparently. We didn't have M-4's in world war I or II, did we?

And the average GI was not a machine-gunner. He was a foot soldier armed with either a 1903-A3, or in WWII, am 8-shot M-1 Garand. Machine guns were there. Thanks for stating the obvious.

And don't change the argument from what WAS done with rifles and handguns with FOOT SOLDIERS to what they 'would have wanted'.

As far as LEA's, they generally shoot what they are told to shoot with, with a few exceptions. Old guys very often carry wheelgun .357's.

For non-LE civilians, 10-round mags are sufficient. I've not heard of a single case where a civilian said 'damn, I wish I had that 11th round'. Just carry two 10-rounders, right?

Sorry to sound irritated. The Tucson thing really bothers me.

violator22348

01-11-2011, 9:53 AM

You really don't understand modern and irregular warfare. I'd recommend you not pontificate on it.

I know my history better than you apparently. We didn't have M-4's in world war I or II, did we?

And the average GI was not a machine-gunner. He was a foot soldier armed with either a 1903-A3, or in WWII, am 8-shot M-1 Garand. Machine guns were there. Thanks for stating the obvious.

And don't change the argument from what WAS done with rifles and handguns with FOOT SOLDIERS to what they 'would have wanted'.

As far as LEA's, they generally shoot what they are told to shoot with, with a few exceptions. Old guys very often carry wheelgun .357's.

For non-LE civilians, 10-round mags are sufficient. I've not heard of a single case where a civilian said 'damn, I wish I had that 11th round'. Just carry two 10-rounders, right?

Sorry to sound irritated. The Tucson thing really bothers me.

I think the point you are missing is the "slippery slope." Why stop at 10 rounds? Why not 5? Why does anyone need semi autos? Why can't you just use a revo which has 6 rounds? That should be sufficient, should it not, in a self defense situation? If the "old guys" carry .357's then they must know something, as they have been "on the job" for a long time, right? At what point will you cease to concede to more assinine laws that only inhibit law abiding gun owners?

violator22348

01-11-2011, 9:59 AM

There are lots of people, living in caves in certain parts of he world, that understand irregular warfare.

Not to hijack the thread, but irregular warfare is only effective when it remains a constant coefficient. When the will of the superior power is such that final outcome is assured, the strategy and tactics associated will reflect this.

The Russians lost the will to win in Afghanistan. The enemy became emboldened ONLY when another superior force (the US) intervened with equivalent counter-technology (Stinger missiles)

We didn't 'lose' Vietnam. We walked away form un-popular war. Had there been a desire to actually win it, the Hanoi bombing would have continued to the point of the North coming to the table. This is documented fact.

Thanks.

zoglog

01-11-2011, 10:00 AM

Not a valid comparison.

Japan is too different in many ways from the U.S. The U.K. and Australia are a lot closer.

For statistics on their rising crime rate after the strict gun control laws see:
http://www.gunfacts.info/

Can you explain why Japan isn't a valid comparison? We're talking about gun control laws, not wildly imperfect gun control laws. True gun control would actually stem the flow of illegal firearms entering or being distributed in a country.

I still think the more valid argument is not legislating to the minority. However claiming that properly implemented gun control won't lower gun fatalities is a bit suspect.

goodlookin1

01-11-2011, 10:00 AM

Agreed. We won two wars (I, II) with G.I.'s who were armed with at first bolt-action 5-shot rifles, 6-shot revolvers, and 7-shot 1911's. When I go to the range, I never see anyone with a pre-ban 33 round mag. It's a waste of ammo, a pain in the *** to load, and paints this weird image of wannabe -tactical.

Right: Tanks, planes, machine guns, ships and bombs had nothing to do with our wins.

The real pain in the a** is having to reload your mags after every 10 rounds. Waste of ammo? How so? Does having high cap mags force you to shoot more??? OMG, AUTOMATIC FORCE FEEDING MAGAZINES!!! IT WONT STOP SHOOTING!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

This guy Loughner, specifically selected (at least that we know of ) two 33-round mags. Think of that. We might have been looking at 66 dead people murdered in less than a minute if this guy had been a trained shooter and no one had stopped him.

How about this: If there was a CCW'er there, they could have stopped him after the first few shots??? I'd rather rely on a good samaritan citizen (or myself [CCW]) than restrict more constitutionally given rights by signing into law some stipulation that would ***allegedly*** stop criminal murderers (As if a hi-cap ban would do this).

I agree that the 2nd Amendment is not a 'needs' based right. You or I should not have to argue that we 'need' guns. Ownership is a right. That's settled. But there is no right for a single individual to put at risk 66 others because of his desire for extended magazines.

More of the same anti babble. Where does it stop? Where does our right begin? Putting at risk 5 others? 10 others? 29 others? What's acceptable to you? So 66 lives are worth it, but 29 arent? Is 1 life not worth the "risk"? How is it that you can justify putting 10 others at "risk", but not 66? Are 66 worth more than 10? By what quantifiable method are you basing this? All this, of course, is assuming a real risk is present in the first place....when in reality it is all theoretical. Insane logic!

No, the risk is in the person, not to tool. The toolbag who shot up the place in AZ should have been taken care of loooong ago: The signs were there. Stop blaming the tool and blame the operator. You want to fix this problem for good? Fix society and the evil heart of man, not the tools evil people choose to use. It's like cutting off the branch of a tree that has dead roots, expecting that to fix the trees' problem.

violator22348

01-11-2011, 10:03 AM

I think the point you are missing is the "slippery slope." Why stop at 10 rounds? Why not 5? Why does anyone need semi autos? Why can't you just use a revo which has 6 rounds? That should be sufficient, should it not, in a self defense situation? If the "old guys" carry .357's then they must know something, as they have been "on the job" for a long time, right? At what point will you cease to concede to more assinine laws that only inhibit law abiding gun owners?

I understand your point backwards and forwards, and the question is valid.

The answer lies in the Supreme Court of course, the ultimate arbiter of our common 'truth'.

ap3572001

01-11-2011, 10:05 AM

This is interesting ... I better jump in :)

While I think its nice to have high cap's( I use them on duty) , I never felt naked with my 357 six shooters or my 1911's.

I don't think a person who can only use 10 rounds or less magazines should feel unsafe......

I have a STD remington 870 with 00 buck and slugs and 357 magnum revolver as my house guns.

What is the point here????

wecf

01-11-2011, 10:11 AM

I just wanted to say "Thanks" for wanting to restrict my rights as you know what is better for me (a law abiding citizen) than I do. I can't wait for the criminal to bust down the door to my house and come at my wife, child, and me with his 33 rnd. clip while I am only allowed 10. Thanks for looking out for us!

stormy_clothing

01-11-2011, 10:14 AM

it has nothing to do with magazines or guns or anything other than murder - people have and will continue to murder until the penalty for doing so scares them enough to no longer commit murder.

jail obviously isnt a good enough reason for many people who find the prospect of wasting millions of tax dollars rotting in a cell forever ok.

the fact is when people die there is no equal no math that says you serve 30 years in prison its the same as that persons life, it's not.

when people can grasp what life is really worth they will relegate crimes of passion to punishment and murder to the death penalty. not murders to life in jail.

Until the day comes when a judge stands up and says I sentence you to hell people will still kill for money or pride or to impress there friends and will still brag about how they want to go back to jail ect.

That's the only practical answer no more humane executions either just the cold hard reality that if you murder you will scream yourself till death.

I bet it takes very few lessons to make that point saving more people and most importantly dealing with the real issue not trying to micromanage bs issues to feign control.

taperxz

01-11-2011, 10:15 AM

This whole arguement is pointless! NO MATTER WHAT! The shooter in AZ had a mindset to go out and do what he was going to do. No law, limit or regulation was going to prevent this from happening.

You take away the larger cap mags from the general public and then only the police would have them. Here is the fun part though, Police officers have one of the highest rates of divorce and cases of depression of almost any career. Who is to say this same act could not have been made by a cop? My point being that ANYONE with the will, will find a way regardless of laws.

Bruce

01-11-2011, 10:16 AM

CALATRAVA and "Billy Jack" are two examples of why we have the gun laws in California that we do. Neither will fight for the Right to Bear Arms if they aren't personally deprived. It's divide and conquer. The anti-gun people have been exploiting this for years with the "sporting purposes" rhetoric. Hunters won't be affected, so they don't join the fight when "assault weapons" or magazines or handguns or ccw's are under attack. After all their three round 870 or their O/U Browning won't be banned, so who cares?
Go ahead and ban large capacity magazines, Ten rounds will do. Next the cry will be to ban semi-automatic pistols. after all, for years people defended themselves with six shot revolvers. Next,we need to ban revolvers. those victims would have died if the shooter had only a single shot pistol. after all, if you want to shoot a handgun for "sporting purposes" you only need a single shot. There is no end to it. Total civilian disarmament is the goal.
As far as "need" CALATRAVA, God help us if the government gets to decide what each of us "needs". Whether it be magazines, guns, cars, houses, books, movies, TV, radio, internet, food, or even our mates the government has no business in our lives. Perhaps you want to open the door for them, but the rest of us most assuredly do not.

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 10:19 AM

I know my history better than you apparently. We didn't have M-4's in world war I or II, did we?

And the average GI was not a machine-gunner. He was a foot soldier armed with either a 1903-A3, or in WWII, am 8-shot M-1 Garand. Machine guns were there. Thanks for stating the obvious.

And don't change the argument from what WAS done with rifles and handguns with FOOT SOLDIERS to what they 'would have wanted'.

As far as LEA's, they generally shoot what they are told to shoot with, with a few exceptions. Old guys very often carry wheelgun .357's.

For non-LE civilians, 10-round mags are sufficient. I've not heard of a single case where a civilian said 'damn, I wish I had that 11th round'. Just carry two 10-rounders, right?

Sorry to sound irritated. The Tucson thing really bothers me.

You're kidding, right?!! Nowhere in what I posted did I say we had M4's in WW1, (or WW2, or Korea, or Vietnam for that matter).

And go back and read what I said about issued handguns. You obviously didn't correctly read what I wrote.

It's well into mid-morning. Time for you to wake up.

Wherryj

01-11-2011, 10:20 AM

A complete ban (no grandfather clause) on handguns might have avoided the situation.

Do you support that too?

A handgun ban wouldn't have prevented this issue. The guy was a "prohibited person". He ignored the law stating that he couldn't possess a firearm.

A handgun ban wouldn't keep people like this from possessing a handgun. The UK has a handgun ban, yet they continue to suffer from handgun deaths. Mexico has very strict gun control, yet the country is a war zone.

Only having all firearms (police, military and civilian) magically vanish would prevent tragedies like this. I say police and military because we see news reports of individuals in those fields get caught selling weapons illegally...

Volksgrenadier

01-11-2011, 10:26 AM

“To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice..."

Thomas Paine

Given how hard Calguns has been fighting to try and restore damaged liberties in this state, I for one am stunned at how quickly people would preemptively surrender here.

The point is not what GI's in WWII or the Minutemen that April morning on Lexington's common green were armed with.

The issue is liberty, plain and simple. Today's restrictions will be followed by next year's bans. Our foes are honest in their stated intent to destroy those liberties.

A 1911 with a seven shot magazine? Awesome! An old Smith and Wesson wheel-gun? Kick ***! A Garand with the 8 shot clip? F%#@ Yeah! Hey, how about an M1 Carbine with 15 round magazine? How about with a 30?

Damn it, we either stand together in this or watch them legislated into oblivion. I remember well the bad old days of the Clinton ban. Every time I jam a 5.56 round into that bullet button to drop free a restricted magazine, I remember the fact that my home is not in a free state.

One jacked up crazed a@@hole in Tucson CANNOT be allowed to cause even more damage than he already has! Damn it, we have come too far, too much hard work, too much territory won back with more to go, to just surrender on any front to the enemies of liberty now.

Sorry, I don't have the facilities to train you. I got a bit of training and got free air transport and such to go meet with people who didn't have tanks, aircraft, etc. but were still putting up quite a fight against the most technologically and arguably best equipped military on Earth - the same one you fear.

We also weren't up against 300 million of our friends and neighbors - many of whom were trained by the U.S. military.

The U.S. military doesn't want to face any armed and angry populace. The most nightmarish armed and angry populace the U.S. military could ever face is the U.S. citizenry. You get the U.S. population sufficiently angry and they'd roll right over our military - it wouldn't even be close.

Seriously, the biggest weapon our government has is a complacent population.

stormy_clothing

01-11-2011, 10:34 AM

Damn it, we either stand together in this or watch them legislated into oblivion. I remember well the bad old days of the Clinton ban. Every time I jam a 5.56 round into that bullet button to drop free a restricted magazine, I remember the fact that my home is not in a free state.

what is standing together mean for you or anyone else here - this is what standing together looks like, it's a sound so deafening that no one can ignore it and liberty upon which it stands is won.

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

I disagree completely. You have joined sides with the anti's. This isn't an issue of gun control, this is an issue of complete and utter failure to control a crazy person with a history of mental health issues. Why you want to keep collectors from owning what they please, or why you want to keep competitive shooters from owning the gear they choose is scary coming from a gun owner on this site.

I propose that we could save far more lives by restricting all automobiles to 25 MPH maximum speed. This would save far more lives and help the environment unlike any hair brained magazine capacity limits. With all the people texting, talking on cell phones, etc we need to do something to protect the children. Why would any sane person need to go any faster than 25 MPH?

This actually makes a small degree of sense unlike your 10 round mag limits. I have exercised a lot of restraint curtailing my true expression of disdain for you and your opinion out of respect for the rules of this forum.

I'd like to know what business you're in and whom you work for so I can be absolutely certain to never patronize it....just like I don't give Peet's Coffee my business anymore. You are just another anti.

taperxz

01-11-2011, 10:38 AM

To all the folks out there advocating a restriction on magazine capacity;

Murder is illegal already, no matter how you do it. If you look around the globe, you will see that all walks of life are willing to die or go to jail for life for a cause. Suicide bombers are proof of this.

Taking away or regulating the amount of rounds a handgun magazine can hold will only make someone who is set on killing as many people as they can find more efficient ways of doing it. This is only if the person willing to do this just CAN'T find the mag of their choice.

It is obvious the sick individual in AZ was determined in his motives. If a +10 mag is the only mag he had and he had killed 3 people would we be screaming for a -10 rd mag? Perhaps an all out handgun band nationwide? After that rifles? Repeal the second amendment? Then when we protest this the government decides that we can't do that because we are protesting something that is illegal? Guess they better get rid of that 1st amendment also. Where would it stop?

ap3572001

01-11-2011, 10:42 AM

I keep reading this .....
Am I missing something? What is this about ? That we do not need 33 round magaiznes?

edwardm

01-11-2011, 10:43 AM

Hrm.

I propose to limit the number of books, magazines or other reading material you may purchase to 1 per 30 days, and these items may contain no more than 10 pages, per government regulation. This includes digital media, so in that realm we'll define a page as single-sided, single-spaced, but not more than 250 words. Punctuation does not count towards the limitation.

Furthermore, you will be limited to 10 unique page views on the internet per day, 10 emails (both inbound and outbound) and 10 minutes of computer or smartphone usage per day. We're trying to be green, use less power, cut down less trees and get people outside more.

Really, it's for your own good, citizen.

Never mind that it's wholly arbitrary, capricious, and irrational. You just bend over, take it like a good little subject and know that Mommy Pelosi and Aunt Feinstein are here to protect ya!

Volksgrenadier

01-11-2011, 10:49 AM

Done that. Will continue. I'll see you there.

what is standing together mean for you or anyone else here - this is what standing together looks like, it's a sound so deafening that no one can ignore it and liberty upon which it stands is won.

For non-LE civilians, 10-round mags are sufficient. I've not heard of a single case where a civilian said 'damn, I wish I had that 11th round'. Just carry two 10-rounders, right?

Sorry to sound irritated. The Tucson thing really bothers me.

Whether you're bothered or not is irrelevant.

Any gun legislation, regardless of limited intent or scope, will GROW. Once a law is on the books, "fixup legislation" is far, far easier to pass. We can't allow anything to get 'on the books' that has 'hooks' for subsequent growth. PERIOD.

A perfect example is what happened to the "Safe handgun Roster" - that grew from a simple drop test that everyone passed, to add a bunch of other various features to handguns, effectively banning most new production handguns in CA.

The difficulty in writing such a law will also allow prospective violations of gunrights far beyond what that law was written as. Did you know that many magazines out there in one caliber are effectively operational hicap mags in another smaller caliber. You could well end up laying groundwork for banning those (and the guns that use them) - overstepping bounds of Fed regulatory law is somewhat easier than in CA as we have some fairly good regulatory code that protects us from 'underground regulation'.

Geesuz, our own 'friends' like you and Calatrava are gonna sell us out worse than our enemies could take us down by themselves. (It was a certain faction of gunnies - SASS - that sold us down the river to get the 'safe Handgun' Roster anyway.)

I get the feeling the Bradys are coming on here and posting, trying to "be reasonable" for "commonsense regulation" and split our opposition.

EVERY AND ANY NEW BAD GUN LAW WILL GROW AND GET WORSE OVER TIME. The time to kill them is NOW, before they get traction.

NOT ONE STEP BACKWARDS.

JHermsen

01-11-2011, 11:11 AM

caltrava, violator, billy jack, please feel free to begin breathing, you could use some oxygen to your brains...

I love how calatrava edits the "nor do you" part of his rant now and violator can't see the logic stream regarding cars or trucks... God help CA and the USA; I'm not sure anything else can! BTW I love the term "Pre-Caving", fits them to a tee. I've got another...how 'bout cowardly compliant.

707electrician

01-11-2011, 11:11 AM

You're right. Protection from a tyrannical government is not something I fear on a daily basis, but is something I believe the 2a does seek to afford protection from.

And we'll have to agree to disagree that having restrictions on commercial, gun store sales of high cap magazines would limit the supply to most people.

Handguns with 10rd mags is something that I think California is just going to have to live with, and I think my energy is best spent fighting for other things such as shall-issue CCW, and an end to the "safe gun" list, both of which DO in fact infringe on someone's fundamental ability to protect themselves/their family.

I think most, if not all of us agree with you that this would limit the supply to most people. The fact of the matter, however, is that it would limit the supply to the wrong people.

Now, setting aside the fact that prohibition of larger capacity magazines would do little at best to prevent murder, giving up the fight for the right for responsible gun owners to posses and use larger capacity magazines is just going to give the anti's more momentum for their cause and will only be detrimental to our other battles like shall-issue CCW or getting rid of the "safe gun" list.

Give them an inch and they're going to want 5 miles. Once you give up [our] right to own larger capacity magazines, what are you going to give up next?

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 11:21 AM

FWIW, I hope we can all still view CALTRAVA, violator, Billy Jack, etc. as our friends and compatriots. I think they are well-meaning and sincere even though I think they are very wrong.

N6ATF

01-11-2011, 11:31 AM

:ban:
Criminals will always have superior equipment if we are infringed upon. What you advocate for is impossible. All magazines over 10 rounds on the planet cannot be magically made to disappear.

mstlaurent

01-11-2011, 11:32 AM

Freedom isn't safe. The more safe you make your society, the less free it will be. We all have to draw the line where we believe the balance between freedom and safety should lie. And before you cry "Freedom at any cost!" understand that the laws against murder, rape, and child molestation also restrict freedom. We all have a line, and nobody's line is at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

I personally am willing to risk my safety for the freedom to use standard-capacity magazines. I live with far greater risks every day. Limiting magazine capacity will reduce my overall risk by only the tiniest fraction, compared the risks I run getting into my car and driving to work, eating red meat, and walking outside during thunderstorms.

The OP (and several others in this thread) decided to move his line a little closer to safety. That's his choice. Unfortunately, part of the risk of living in a free society is that you have to live with the bad decisions made by others. The Tucson shooting, gun control, and this thread, are all sterling examples of this.

taperxz

01-11-2011, 11:34 AM

FWIW, I hope we can all still view CALTRAVA, violator, Billy Jack, etc. as our friends and compatriots. I think they are well-meaning and sincere even though I think they are very wrong.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=382167

Something tells me Billy Jack may not be as friendly as you think.
At least to CGN. I was disappointed to see this also!

tonelar

01-11-2011, 11:35 AM

I think most, if not all of us agree with you that this would limit the supply to most people. The fact of the matter, however, is that it would limit the supply to the wrong people.

Now, setting aside the fact that prohibition of larger capacity magazines would do little at best to prevent murder, giving up the fight for the right for responsible gun owners to posses and use larger capacity magazines is just going to give the anti's more momentum for their cause and will only be detrimental to our other battles like shall-issue CCW or getting rid of the "safe gun" list.

Give them an inch and they're going to want 5 miles. Once you give up [our] right to own larger capacity magazines, what are you going to give up next?

707electrician? did you mean;
I think most, if not all of us agree with you that this would limit the supply to most people. The fact of the matter, however, is that it wouldn't limit the supply to the wrong people.
or maybe I'm misunderstanding wrong people to mean the good guys?

FWIW, I hope we can all still view CALTRAVA, violator, Billy Jack, etc. as our friends and compatriots. I think they are well-meaning and sincere even though I think they are very wrong.

Very well said, OleCuss. We're in a fight, my friends. Quarreling amongst ourselves is hurting our side. I own a ton of high caps that I purchased in the days prior to the federal ban (even bought for guns I didn't yet own when the Cali-ban was looming).

I'm for giving the antis NOTHING on this or any other day.

707electrician

01-11-2011, 11:37 AM

707electrician? did you mean;

or maybe I'm misunderstanding wrong people to mean the good guys?

Very well said, OleCuss. We're in a fight, my friends. Quarreling amongst ourselves is hurting our side. I own a ton of high caps that I purchased in the days prior to the federal ban (even bought for guns I didn't yet own when the Cali-ban was looming).

I'm for giving the antis NOTHING on this or any other day.

I meant that it would only limit supply to the good guys

MudCamper

01-11-2011, 11:38 AM

FWIW, I hope we can all still view CALTRAVA, violator, Billy Jack, etc. as our friends and compatriots. I think they are well-meaning and sincere even though I think they are very wrong.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions", as are ALL gun control laws.

IMO those who claim to be a part of our community but work for the same goals as the Bradys are far more dangerous to us than the other side. They will be quoted by the other side, in a "see, even gun-rights activists agree we should ban semi-autos!" type tactic.

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 11:42 AM

caltrava, violator, billy jack, please feel free to begin breathing, you could use some oxygen to your brains...

I love how calatrava edits the "nor do you" part of his rant now and violator can't see the logic stream regarding cars or trucks... God help CA and the USA; I'm not sure anything else can! BTW I love the term "Pre-Caving", fits them to a tee. I've got another...how 'bout cowardly compliant.

I edited it out in the open and made it clear why I did so. It's a problematic statement and offended several members. Not what I intended at all.

.

edwardm

01-11-2011, 11:45 AM

I get the feeling the Bradys are coming on here and posting, trying to "be reasonable" for "commonsense regulation" and split our opposition.

With all sincerity, I wouldn't doubt this to be the case. In fact, I think it was known to be the case a while back.

oddball

01-11-2011, 11:48 AM

Geesuz, our own 'friends' like you and Calatrava are gonna sell us out worse than our enemies could take us down by themselves. (It was a certain faction of gunnies - SASS - that sold us down the river to get the 'safe Handgun' Roster anyway.)

I get the feeling the Bradys are coming on here and posting, trying to "be reasonable" for "commonsense regulation" and split our opposition.

EVERY AND ANY NEW BAD GUN LAW WILL GROW AND GET WORSE OVER TIME. The time to kill them is NOW, before they get traction.

NOT ONE STEP BACKWARDS.

This NEEDS repeating. Many times.

To those willing to throw away the ability to own standard capacity magazines, how naive can you be, thinking that "giving one concession" to the antis and the Bradys will make them leave us alone on CCW, semi-auto firearms, handguns, etc? Are you seriously that thick?

Not unless this IS YOUR IDEOLOGY, any mag over 10 rds is evil and dangerous , and that YOU know best for the rest of us firearms owners. :rolleyes:

CALATRAVA, I have your back on this. No legislator is going to carry water on 'the right to possess high capacity magazines'. It is a dead issue people, man up to that. You will see legislation passed to restrict possession and sale of high capacity magazines to civilians. It will be Federal and the NRA will be silent on this one or offer only tepid opposition.

Members need only read sources other than firearm sites to see the mood of the country on this issue.

You 'anything goes' under the 2nd Amendment people need to smell the coffee. You can beat up on CALATRAVA and people like me as much as your personality requires but it will not change the circumstances. Change is in the wind.
http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'

www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

I've been saying this for a while- You are an anti. You're one of the people that would be happy if the 2nd Amendment was revoked just to say "I told you so." Weren't you supposed to leave Calguns a while back? Or was everyone right and you were just crying for attention...

edwardm

01-11-2011, 11:57 AM

When you've got cancer, what does the doctor do? Remove it. Cut it out. Irradiate it. Poison it. But effectively remove it from the rest of the body.

I think the Calguns 'body' needs some tumors removed. This isn't a case of differing opinions anymore. This is a case of malignancy, Zumbo-style.

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 12:00 PM

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions", as are ALL gun control laws.

IMO those who claim to be a part of our community but work for the same goals as the Bradys are far more dangerous to us than the other side. They will be quoted by the other side, in a "see, even gun-rights activists agree we should ban semi-autos!" type tactic.

I almost entirely agree with you.

I believe that violent felons should not have weapons. Reformed violent felons - we can talk about. Kids should be required to go through some form of firearms training in school. So I guess I believe in some forms of gun control laws.

But Wayne LaPierre is far more dangerous to us than are CALTRAVA, violator, or even Billy Jack. LaPierre has apparently said some very stupid things and by virtue of his positioning within the community he will be quoted and can damage us.

CALTRAVA, violator, Billy Jack, myself are of little consequence. I mean, how many people outside of a very select community really care about my opinion on firearms and gun control?

The danger is that their willingness to acquiesce to a wholesale violation of our rights can metastasize.

Sgt5811

01-11-2011, 12:03 PM

All the OP needs is a one round mag and save it for himself! Don't post on pro gun forums your restrictive ideas and call yourself a pro gun guy. Even if you don't feel as strongly about gun rights, it is black or white. You are either for or against your own rights. Remember that old adage "give and inch and they take want to take a foot."

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 12:05 PM

When you've got cancer, what does the doctor do? Remove it. Cut it out. Irradiate it. Poison it. But effectively remove it from the rest of the body.

I think the Calguns 'body' needs some tumors removed. This isn't a case of differing opinions anymore. This is a case of malignancy, Zumbo-style.

You want to understand the thoughts of the people with whom you disagree and how to effectively argue with them (and maybe even change their minds)? Keep them around and treat them as brothers and sisters.

If you want an isolated little community with unity of thought and no original ideas or clue as to what is going on in the rest of the world - start banishing all those who might dare to disagree with me.

Personally, I think it is healthier to welcome all who would be reasonably polite and not totally deranged.

cindynles

01-11-2011, 12:07 PM

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

-B

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemöller

You may not care about +10 mags now but, they will eventually come for something that you do care about. By then it may be too late.

motorhead

01-11-2011, 12:10 PM

disagree! i oppose ALL firearms laws.
this whacko supposedly had a history (sound familiar?), he was allowed to fester until he went off. there are unsubstantiated rumors that he had preveious contact with le over threats.

hellraiser

01-11-2011, 12:12 PM

That's the crux of my opinion. I don't feel like I'm handing over my right to bear arms, simply because I have 10 rounders rather than 30s.

But see thats just it. I understand your opinion and respect it, if thats whats best for you. The problem is this...

I have no need, nor do you,

Some of us do feel like every single restriction that is put upon us regardless of how small or relevance in day to day life is a direct attack of our rights.

Im very sorry about the shooting, but I had no part in it. Im very sorry that your opinion has changed because of it, but thats not my fault either. If you dont want "high cap mags" who am I to tell you different? However why should I be punished for one mans insanity and others fear?

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 12:15 PM

The reports that he had previous LEO contact over death threats are confirmed.

But seriously? You'd let violent felons have firearms? You truly oppose all firearms laws? Remember, if you really mean that you'd let people on Death Row have fully automatic weapons - even our EPW's could keep their firearms?

There is room for some minimalist firearms law.

707electrician

01-11-2011, 12:19 PM

I have no need, nor do you,

This just blows my mind.

hellraiser

01-11-2011, 12:25 PM

This thread really makes me think that the people who were shot that day wont be the only innocent bystanders who will be "hurt" by this tragedy.

N6ATF

01-11-2011, 12:26 PM

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions", as are ALL gun control laws.

Very few could have attained public office or any position of stature by having such a rock-bottom IQ, that prevents them from seeing the obvious, peer-researched, government statistics-proven FACT that gun control only helps criminals and increases crime.

Those who pass gun control laws only claim it's for the children (to suffer and die) while ACTING like idiots, to get away with their treason against the human race.

Saym14

01-11-2011, 12:35 PM

we should make semi auto illegal. and only allow single shot guns. that would make mass murder more difficult.

oh wait. murder is illegal, that didnt stop him ?

if this nut had no gun he would have probably built a bomb and killed more people.

PEBKAC

01-11-2011, 12:35 PM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B
And what, the hi-capacity magazine fairy is going to go throughout the land and the surrounding world converting all high capacity magazines into wholesome 10 round magazines? Yes, and I'm the Man in the Moon and/or Abraham Lincoln, and moreover I'm selling bridges, etc.

I'm going to need you to step away from the emotions with your hands up.

Really, this isn't hard:

-Weapons are typically designed with specific magazine capacities in mind, they work best with these capacities.

-Law Enforcement and Military or associated consumers are not going to settle for that which stacks the odds ever so slightly not in their favor. If it can hold 30, they want 30.

-Law Enforcement and Military or associated consumers regardless of any civilian ban, will get their evil high capacity magazines.

-Law enforcement and Military or associated buyers are human and as a consequence lose things, and some will even try to black market some of their gear. Don't try to tell me this does not happen, it does, especially in countries where the most commonly seen form of taxation is the bribe.

-Suddenly, those who want them but are not any of the above mentioned buyers are in possession of the "problem product" so long as they don't mind violating a few laws.

-The group of "those who don't mind violating a few laws" at the very least includes the disreputable and unscrupulous characters that we were probably trying to keep from acquiring these magazines in the first place.

-And thusly your magazine capacity laws are absolutely useless.

If the laws are useless, then they should not be passed for one primary reason:

-Too many notes for the royal ears, or rather too many laws for the overburdened justice system which has various consequences such as:

--The more laws there are to enforce the more money it costs, and that money doesn't grow on trees, unless taxpayers and/or China are considered trees.

--The more laws there are, the more confusing things get, and the more time things take and thus the more shortcuts get taken in prosecuting which can result in proper justice not necessarily being served.

You could also probably make some other arguments from varying perspectives about over legislating and the reasons not to do so, but for my purposes the above is sufficient.

And all this, without even disagreeing on whether we ~need~ more than 10 rounds. It's not a matter of need, or want, or even like, its a matter of not tilting at windmills. :rolleyes:

Bruce

01-11-2011, 12:42 PM

I've been saying this for a while- You are an anti. You're one of the people that would be happy if the 2nd Amendment was revoked just to say "I told you so." Weren't you supposed to leave Calguns a while back? Or was everyone right and you were just crying for attention...

I've wondered that myself regarding Billy Jack. In the TV trailer for the movie "Billy Jack" back in 1971, the following exchange was quite prominent:

Jean: You just can't keep making your own laws. There's got to be one set of laws fair for everyone, including you.
Billy Jack: That's fine. When that set of laws is applied to everyone, then I'll turn the other cheek too.
Jean: There's got to be a better way to change those people.
Billy Jack: CHANGE those people? You worked with King, didn't you?
Jean: Yes!
Billy Jack: Where is he?
Jean: Dead.
Billy Jack: And where's Bob and Jack Kennedy?
Jean: Dead.
Billy Jack: Not "dead", their brains blown out! Because YOUR people wouldn't even put the same controls on their guns as they do on their dogs, their bicycles, their cats, and their automobiles.

In other words, JFK, RFK, and MLK would still be alive if guns were licenced and registered. Hardly a great choice of "nom de internet" for a gun rights crusader.

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 12:45 PM

All the OP needs is a one round mag and save it for himself! Don't post on pro gun forums your restrictive ideas and call yourself a pro gun guy. Even if you don't feel as strongly about gun rights, it is black or white. You are either for or against your own rights. Remember that old adage "give and inch and they take want to take a foot."

I've been on this gun forum for a year longer than you have, sir. I consider this to be a community that I am able to bring my firearm-related questions and thoughts to without hesitation.

I haven't uttered one cross word at a mass of postings that competely disagree with me and make solid points to the contrary of what I'm feeling. I intended to receive vibrant feedback, and wanted to hear honest thoughts while this was fresh in all our minds.

Your post stuck with me though...

Did you really just encourage me to kill myself?

And for your statement of you're either "you're with us or you're against us".

I've never applied such absolutist thought to anything in my life. Especially something as complex as gun laws.

Not about to start now.

N6ATF

01-11-2011, 12:50 PM

Billy Jack{...} Hardly a great choice of "nom de internet" for a gun rights crusader.

WOW

Even if you don't feel as strongly about gun rights, it is black or white. You are either for or against your own rights. Remember that old adage "give and inch and they take want to take a foot."

Our government took an inch, then a foot, then a yard, then a meter, then a mile, then a light-year, and they won't stop until they have taken EVERYTHING in existence in all dimensions of time and space. It's time they are legally punished for their infinite amount of civil rights violations.

Tzvia

01-11-2011, 12:51 PM

The reports that he had previous LEO contact over death threats are confirmed.

But seriously? You'd let violent felons have firearms? You truly oppose all firearms laws? Remember, if you really mean that you'd let people on Death Row have fully automatic weapons - even our EPW's could keep their firearms?

There is room for some minimalist firearms law.

Yes. Convicted felons lost their rights. People in prison lost their rights. But as a free (questionable at this point) citizen, I am supposed to be innocent till proven guilty by a jury of my peers. Instead, I have to pay to prove I am innocent, just to buy a gun. Where is this constitutional? I have to wait after making a purchase, 10 24hr periods. What does this do, other than put me at risk if I am buying a weapon due to imminent/perceived danger? Ok, if the State wants to run a background check, great; do it on the State's dime. Not on mine. To make me pay is a slap on the face. Make it instant and transparent, so I can take home what I buy-after all, I am an innocent citizen. To put me through this again and again, (I own over 90 weapons) is just a tax tax tax. That wacko in AZ sailed through the background test last November, and walked home with his gun. He was nuts but nobody put the kibosh on him other than to throw him out of community college. To blame all gun owners and slap still more regulations on us is only accosting us with no positive result. To blame the gun is insane. Remember, Timothy Mcveigh killed 168 people with fertilizer.

the_quark

01-11-2011, 1:00 PM

It is a dead issue people, man up to that. You will see legislation passed to restrict possession and sale of high capacity magazines to civilians. It will be Federal and the NRA will be silent on this one or offer only tepid opposition.

I believe you'll see national legislation proposed to restrict sale. I don't believe you'll see national legislation proposed to restrict possession (because the "takings" issue is too strong). I also believe the NRA will oppose it directly, and it will lose handily.

Care to make a wager on it not passing this year? Maybe five Glock large-capacity rebuild kits? ;)

Reductio

01-11-2011, 1:03 PM

I've been on this gun forum for a year longer than you have, sir.

The elitism, I can smell it....

I don't like any more governance than absolutely necessary, I'm too much a student of history to blindly accept "well it sounds good to me" explanations for control.

JHermsen

01-11-2011, 1:04 PM

Calawhatever posted. "You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I."

"I edited it out in the open and made it clear why I did so. It's a problematic statement and offended several members. Not what I intended at all."

Not so galvanized now are ya. You are one of the most wishy washy individuals I've had the displeasure of communicating with. One minute your waving your finger telling us all how we don't need something, then it's, "not what I intended at all..."!

Go back to your tiddly winks and leave serious discussion of policy to the adults.

How do Americans feel about guns??? How worried do we need to be about bans of evil semi-auto's, now WMD's (yes, you heard that), in light of Heller and McDonald???

the_quark

01-11-2011, 1:05 PM

This guy Loughner, specifically selected (at least that we know of ) two 33-round mags. Think of that. We might have been looking at 66 dead people murdered in less than a minute if this guy had been a trained shooter and no one had stopped him.

Actually, if his second magazine hadn't malfunctioned (per Sheriff Dupnik), allowing people the time to get to him. It's quite possible if he'd had 6 ten-rounders he'd have completed all reloads successfully, and gotten all his shots off. I am reasonably sure from the press accounts I've read everyone jumped him when he was unable to make his gun go bang after the reload was complete.

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 1:12 PM

The elitism, I can smell it....

I don't like any more governance than absolutely necessary, I'm too much a student of history to blindly accept "well it sounds good to me" explanations for control.

Um, its not elitism, it's a education in the fact that I've called Calguns home for a long time, and don't appreciate the "not in my sandbox" comments.

;)

bwiese

01-11-2011, 1:12 PM

CALATRAVA, I have your back on this. No legislator is going to carry water on
'the right to possess high capacity magazines'. It is a dead issue people, man up to that. You will see
legislation passed to restrict possession and sale of high capacity magazines to civilians. It will be Federal
and the NRA will be silent on this one or offer only tepid opposition.

Members need only read sources other than firearm sites to see the mood of the country on this issue.

You 'anything goes' under the 2nd Amendment people need to smell the coffee. You can beat up on CALATRAVA
and people like me as much as your personality requires but it will not change the circumstances.

BillyJack...

Your analysis is wrong. And the news always flares up on anything & everything.

1.) Already polling has shown that people are generally categorizing this as a plain 'nutjob issue' - not a political invective issue, nor
a big gun issue.

Also, Sheriff Diplick or WTF his name is from Pima County (and his dept) have turned out not to have acted on multiple past threats from
the shooter - and had even told folks concerned about the shooters' prior aberrent actions and threats that 'he was under watch' (when
he was not). He got his 15 minutes of fame over his commentary and I think will fade back into the limelight now that his deptartment's
(and thus his) substandard performance becomes more known.

The antis will still be antis, the pros still pros, and the political line won't move much. The polling is somewhat irrelevant since it doesn't align
with congressional districts that have seated midlly or rabidy pro-gun legislators. The hicap mag issue will move aside, and at worst this'll turn
into a mental health screening/Brady background check information issue vs. HIPAA - just like VA Tech.

2.) No hicap mag ban will pass thru Congress. We've got enough folks on our side to stop it at least in one house, even if a few get weak-
kneed. The 1993 Fed AW Ban had the orig mag ban as part of it, and that was as irritating to gunnies as was the actual 1994 Fed AWB itself.

We - and more importantly *they* - remember what happened in '94: we mopped Congress' floor with their political "blood" (hey, there's that
inflammatory rhetoric again!) We took out the Speaker of the House plus a pile of other Senators and Congressmen. Bill Clinton correctly
opined the NRA and gunnies for that overturn (and which, somewhat indirectly, eventially lead to Obama's "cling to their guns and religion"
comment about 2 yrs ago.)

3.) Carolyn McCarthy even acknowledges a mag ban has next to no chance of passing [she should say even getting out of committee] and is
even talking about giving up 10 round limit if she were to propose something She's thus throwing up a 'puff piece' to be 'relevant' to her district.
Others like DiFi and Babs will make the usual moans and groans. With the last elections, California is fairly irrelevant nationally (outside of
going broke.)

4.) I am more than reasonably confident you have little or no idea of what the NRA will do - I believe you are fairly out-of-the-loop in the actual
gunrights front - you have a private biz to run for special clients, and would incur a negative financial impact were gunrights (CCW issuance)
actually to improve. While I and others appreciate your pressure in certain aspects as in part helping certain gun issues, I also recognize your
bias and decoupling from actual gunrights matters.

5.) Please don't presurrender for the rest of us. You will accidentally be percieved as 'one of us' and you most assuredly are not.

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 1:16 PM

Calawhatever posted. "You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I."

"I edited it out in the open and made it clear why I did so. It's a problematic statement and offended several members. Not what I intended at all."

Not so galvanized now are ya. You are one of the most wishy washy individuals I've had the displeasure of communicating with. One minute your waving your finger telling us all how we don't need something, then it's, "not what I intended at all..."!

Go back to your tiddly winks and leave serious discussion of policy to the adults.

Easy there, friend...This is what I edited to, which I believe retains the same opinion, but possibly in an less inflammatory way:

A better way to put what I meant, might be,

"You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that American gun-owners would not be ill-prepared to defend themselves if deprived of high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I."

I did not edit my original post, I didn't erase anything at all, nor did I change my position. It's on page 3, post 110.

bwiese

01-11-2011, 1:16 PM

Um, its not elitism, it's a education in the fact that I've called Calguns home for a long time, and don't appreciate the "not in my sandbox" comments.

My sandbox is California and I resent someone trying to presurrender for us at a national level, esp when we
are making progress getting hicap mags back into CA.

You are directly attacking me, as well - I own hundreds of hicap mags.

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 1:22 PM

My sandbox is California and I resent someone trying to presurrender for us at a national level, esp when we
are making progress getting hicap mags back into CA.

You are directly attacking me, as well - I own hundreds of hicap mags.

And I like living in a place where people don't have ready access to high-cap magazines.

Reductio

01-11-2011, 1:23 PM

And I like living in a place where people don't have ready access to high-cap magazines.

You should like the UK. :)

PEBKAC

01-11-2011, 1:25 PM

And I like living in a place where people don't have ready access to high-cap magazines.
Then you clearly don't live in California...now if you meant ready ~legal~ access to high capacity magazines that would be another story.

bwiese

01-11-2011, 1:27 PM

And I like living in a place where people don't have ready access to high-cap magazines.

Come over to my place, I can swim in hundreds of them. Or I can send you a video of said swimming.

In 6 months, if not less, there will be fully CA + Federally legal "ready access" [defined as 'mail order with special steps/intermediares, and at a somewhat elevated price] to hicap mags *within* CA for both new and old guns, for pistols and rifles, for C&R guns and evil black guns.

And there will also be nothing CA can do about it legislatively nor judicially (other than perhaps some initial LE harassment, which we are taking pains of averting instead of just 'getting it on' immediately) -- and I believe we're secure Federally from any changes in this area given national politics.

And I like living in a place where people don't have ready access to high-cap magazines.

Please take your one round mag and go there. What an ***.

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 1:30 PM

Come over to my place, I can swim in them. Or I can send you a video of it.

In 6 months, if not less, there will be fully CA + Federally legal "ready access" [defined as 'mail order with special steps/intermediares, and at a somewhat elevated price] to hicap mags *within* CA for both new and old guns.

There will also be nothing CA can do about it legislatively nor judicially (other than perhaps some initial harassment) - and I believe we're secure Federally from any changes in this area given national politics.

So I hope you are uncomfortable.

I think this discussion is about done. And yes, I would actually really like to see that video for some strange reason. :D

707electrician

01-11-2011, 1:32 PM

Come over to my place, I can swim in hundreds of them. Or I can send you a video of said swimming.

In 6 months, if not less, there will be fully CA + Federally legal "ready access" [defined as 'mail order with special steps/intermediares, and at a somewhat elevated price] to hicap mags *within* CA for both new and old guns, for pistols and rifles, for C&R guns and evil black guns.

And there will also be nothing CA can do about it legislatively nor judicially (other than perhaps some initial LE harassment, which we are taking pains of averting instead of just 'getting it on' immediately) -- and I believe we're secure Federally from any changes in this area given national politics.

So I hope you are uncomfortable.

I'd like to see the video as well:D

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 1:32 PM

And I like living in a place where people don't have ready access to high-cap magazines.

Considering that I could pretty much equip a squad with my high-cap magazines, all the magazines Bill has, and all those many of my acquaintance have - you should be uncomfortable now.

And as Bill points out, if you live in California you may need to soon move to another country if you won't feel comfortable in a state awash in high capacity magazines.

taperxz

01-11-2011, 1:35 PM

And I like living in a place where people don't have ready access to high-cap magazines.

May i suggest UAL flight 2492 to Bejing? Our 2A does not apply there.

OOPS! don't let the door....

PEBKAC

01-11-2011, 1:37 PM

Come over to my place, I can swim in hundreds of them. Or I can send you a video of said swimming.

In 6 months, if not less, there will be fully CA + Federally legal "ready access" [defined as 'mail order with special steps/intermediares, and at a somewhat elevated price] to hicap mags *within* CA for both new and old guns, for pistols and rifles, for C&R guns and evil black guns.

And there will also be nothing CA can do about it legislatively nor judicially (other than perhaps some initial LE harassment, which we are taking pains of averting instead of just 'getting it on' immediately) -- and I believe we're secure Federally from any changes in this area given national politics.

So I hope you are uncomfortable.
This video needs to happen badly. O_O

I think it would be optimal to have screenings of it in Sacramento on the day the CGF high-capacity bum-rush begins just as an extra "up yours" to those who disapprove in the capitol building. :D

taperxz

01-11-2011, 1:38 PM

Come over to my place, I can swim in hundreds of them. Or I can send you a video of said swimming.

In 6 months, if not less, there will be fully CA + Federally legal "ready access" [defined as 'mail order with special steps/intermediares, and at a somewhat elevated price] to hicap mags *within* CA for both new and old guns, for pistols and rifles, for C&R guns and evil black guns.

And there will also be nothing CA can do about it legislatively nor judicially (other than perhaps some initial LE harassment, which we are taking pains of averting instead of just 'getting it on' immediately) -- and I believe we're secure Federally from any changes in this area given national politics.

So I hope you are uncomfortable.

Oh come on!! I just ate and i'm not ready for a good "nooner" dear. LOL

bwiese

01-11-2011, 1:39 PM

I think this discussion is about done. And yes, I would actually really like to see that video for some strange reason. :D

No, it's not done.

You're an anti, and need to be run to ground.

I've been 'sold out' in the past too many times by people supposedly on my side....

Bill Ruger *****ing' about hicap mags (helping out the '94 AWB) I didn't buy a Ruger 'til he was off the scence/dead
and new mgmt was in place (hey, Ruger makes ARs and sells hicaps to individuals now, whaddya know?)
.
S&W sellout to Cuomo/HUD. Massive management change thru inverted corporate buyout fixed that. S&W is now an
aggresively pro-gun company even though it may have cost them some PD/LE biz in larger metro depts at the time.
.
CA 'duck hunters' & Thirty Caliber Idiot 'target shooters' (protecting their precious wood guns at the cost of everyone
else's - which is why I call 'em that) appearing in ads & promotionals in support of CA's orig AW ban, and speaking
up as incompetent individuals instead of letting the NRA speak for them
.
CA's "approved handgun Roster" was brought to us by SASS (using NRA traitor Richard Feldman as their lobbyist) in
cooperation with some old now-cashiered gun 'lobbyists' who had other interests besides guns. Again, they sold out
and broke unity trying to protect their precious special-interest gun instead of maintaining ranks to block the whole action.

putput

01-11-2011, 1:39 PM

Can we get -INSERT RANDOM HOTTIE HERE- to do it instead? I've heard Bwiese describe himself and a video of him should be limited to 10 frames. Fer the CHILDREN!

This video needs to happen badly. O_O

I think it would be optimal to have screenings of it in Sacramento on the day the CGF high-capacity bum-rush begins just as an extra "up yours" to those who disapprove in the capitol building. :D

JHermsen

01-11-2011, 1:48 PM

Originally Posted by CALATRAVA View Post
I think this discussion is about done. And yes, I would actually really like to see that video for some strange reason.

A typically cowardly and confused response to overwhelming pressure not to be an *** hole. BTW love your dodges, you should work for the CA DOJ...or do you?

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 1:52 PM

No, it's not done.

You're an anti, and need to be run to ground.

I've been 'sold out' in the past too many times by people supposedly on my side....

Bill Ruger *****ing' about hicap mags (helping out the '94 AWB) I didn't buy a Ruger 'til he was off the scence/dead
and new mgmt was in place (hey, Ruger makes ARs and sells hicaps to individuals now, whaddya know?)
.
S&W sellout to Cuomo/HUD. Massive management change thru inverted corporate buyout fixed that. S&W is now an
aggresively pro-gun company even though it may have cost them some PD/LE biz in larger metro depts at the time.
.
CA 'duck hunters' & Thirty Caliber Idiot 'target shooters' (protecting their precious wood guns at the cost of everyone
else's - which is why I call 'em that) appearing in ads & promotionals in support of CA's orig AW ban, and speaking
up as incompetent individuals instead of letting the NRA speak for them
.
CA's "approved handgun Roster" was brought to us by SASS (using NRA traitor Richard Feldman as their lobbyist) in
cooperation with some old now-cashiered gun 'lobbyists' who had other interests besides guns. Again, they sold out
and broke unity trying to protect their precious special-interest gun instead of maintaining ranks to block the whole action.

I'm an anti-gunner because I believe we MIGHT be a bit safer if the people who choose to do harm MIGHT have a bit tougher time finding a 30-round magazine than their local turners?

I'm an anti because I think that with some training and a good sidearm, I'd feel like my friends and family would be suitably well armed with the 10 round mags that have been the standard for quite a while here in California?

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways?

Gimme a break, sir.

I've tried to articulate my thoughts, however you might disagree, in a positive, constructive way, and have been called names, and told to kill myself several times of all things.

I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't see the point in name calling. I would like to keep this from turning ugly for the sake of the mostly positive culture/tone that this site embodies.

GM4spd

01-11-2011, 1:56 PM

The Arizona incident in now the new anti gun poster child basically.
And people are jumping on that bandwagon.

Oh yes,this is very true. The state of
CA is never going to overturn their high capacity mag ban,either.
If anything CA will be the new example for other states to follow.

Pete

taperxz

01-11-2011, 1:58 PM

I'm an anti-gunner because I believe we MIGHT be a bit safer if the people who choose to do harm MIGHT have a bit tougher time finding a 30-round magazine than their local turners?

I'm an anti because I think that with some training and a good sidearm, I'd feel like my friends and family would be suitably well armed with the 10 round mags that have been the standard for quite a while here in California?

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways?

Gimme a break, sir.

I've tried to articulate my thoughts, however you might disagree, in a positive, constructive way, and have been called names, and told to kill myself several times of all things.

I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't see the point in name calling. I would like to keep this from turning ugly for the sake of the mostly positive culture/tone that this site embodies.

Gee, welcome to our PRO 2A forum!! I hope you enjoyed your unfettered 1A enjoyment here. How would you like it if this "right" was limited to a ten post rule? Maybe the government should make a ten word rule against speaking out against our basic rights in this country.

In all fairness the pen has been mightier than the sword after all. Words and ideas have killed you know!!

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 2:01 PM

Gee, welcome to our PRO 2A forum!! I hope you enjoyed your unfettered 1A enjoyment here. How would you like it if this "right" was limited to a ten post rule? Maybe the government should make a ten word rule against speaking out against our basic rights in this country.

In all fairness the pen has been mightier than the sword after all. Words and ideas have killed you know!!

"2nd ammendment related legal and political discussion" is the name of this section of Calguns.

I honestly never realized dissenting opinions weren't welcome.

N6ATF

01-11-2011, 2:04 PM

Opinions espoused by the Brady Campaign for Victim Disarmament and Criminal Safety, that the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed, are unwelcome.

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 2:04 PM

I'm an anti-gunner because I believe we MIGHT be a bit safer if the people who choose to do harm MIGHT have a bit tougher time finding a 30-round magazine than their local turners?

I'm an anti because I think that with some training and a good sidearm, I'd feel like my friends and family would be suitably well armed with the 10 round mags that have been the standard for quite a while here in California?

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways?

Gimme a break, sir.

I've tried to articulate my thoughts, however you might disagree, in a positive, constructive way, and have been called names, and told to kill myself several times of all things.

I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't see the point in name calling. I would like to keep this from turning ugly for the sake of the mostly positive culture/tone that this site embodies.

I tend to disagree with Bill's characterization of you, but he does have a point.

If you are a loving individual who wants the best for everyone about you but you are inadvertently spreading wanton destruction wherever you go - people have some reason to consider you something other than wonderful.

Bill is correct about your position (if widely adopted) leading to even more objectionable measures in the future - and honestly, if your position were widespread within the RKBA community those objectionable measures would be inevitable.

Thus Bill has a valid reason to consider you to be anti-RKBA even if I don't. I'm going by your motives (which I believe to be pure) and Bill is going by the results of your position.

Bill is extremely bright and well-informed and he has been a warrior on this battlefield for a long time. His perspective is always worthy of respect - even when we may not entirely agree with it.

taperxz

01-11-2011, 2:05 PM

Thats what i am saying! They are not unwelcome, you can't blame the forum for the remarks made by pro 2A posters.

If you were in a prop 8 forum and told them you were against gay marriage what kind of a response do you think you might get from the people posting in that forum?

curtisfong

01-11-2011, 2:06 PM

We've already pointed out the flaws in your argument

1) "would have"/"could have" saved lives is entirely hypothetical, especially if it is possible (or even probable) that 10 round mags would not have malfunctioned, and he would have been able to reload properly.

2) outlawing "high cap" mags doesn't prevent criminals from getting them, nor does it make it harder for them to get them

3) what is "high cap"? Is 10 rounds of .45 ACP more "deadly" than 30 9mm?

4) we'll continue to go around and around, pointing out how wrong you are, but you'll never concede anything. So why should we put up with you?

PEBKAC

01-11-2011, 2:09 PM

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways?

Gimme a break, sir.
The progression from an inch to a foot to a mile WRT gun control is well documented. Most of Europe is a living example of what the score is. Finland, where automatics used to be legal and common is now facing increasingly stringent ante-upping on the issue every time a shooting of some sort happens. And that is just ~one~ example. Britain and Australia are obvious ones, and not just on guns but speech as well but that is a different topic.

Heck, California is even a good example. Just this summer we saw 3 laws that would have upped the ante if passed...if we didn't have some good people playing intercept, defense, and offense like complete bosses we'd be way over our heads in ante-upping gun laws by now.

Bottom line: it's just how gun control works, give an inch, they want a foot and then once they have a foot the mile is a foregone conclusion.

ZombieTactics

01-11-2011, 2:10 PM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation.
"Most people"? Statistically? I think you are confusing statistics about the average number fired with how many are needed in many situations. This is silly and illogical. By the same reasoning "most people" are never victims of violent crime, therefore nobody needs a gun ... dumb.

Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. Just as often it's not.

In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government.
In the real world ... detectives carry Glocks with nothing less than a 9mm or .40S&W round and 15 or 17 round magazines. There is a reason for that.

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload. I am unaware of any report form a recognized authority who has made this claim.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.
You are engaging in a "tactical hallucination". There is no reason to believe that someone would have been in the right place/time when he exhausted the first 7 or 10 rounds. At least two of those credited with wrestling the scum to the ground would not have even been on the scene at that time, so you analysis fails given the facts at hand.

can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.
Why? You have provided nothing in the way of actual evidence or clear reasoning. Why a limit on 10 and not 5 ... or allowing up to 15? What evidence do you have supporting ANY "magic number"?

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself. Unless you can provide a quote from someone at those companies supporting your position, it appears that you are engaging in a deliberate deception. I can tell you as a matter of FACT that several trainers at those schools would call you an idiot (or worse) to your face.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support. You are welcome to arm disarm yourself to whatever degree you choose. Why would you deny another man the right to do the same?

MudCamper

01-11-2011, 2:12 PM

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways?

Yes. And yes. It has been proven again and again that this is their intention and their tactic. If you don't see this, well, you are blind, to put it kindly.

Let me quote a few more of your statements to prove you are anti.

And I like living in a place where people don't have ready access to high-cap magazines.

I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

You don't see these statements as anti-RKBA? Really? Well, they are. Really.

I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't see the point in name calling.

Calling you anti-RKBA is not name calling. If I called you a fool, it would be name calling (albeit true). But calling you an anti is not name calling.

bwiese

01-11-2011, 2:18 PM

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways?

Gimme a break, sir.

No breaks for compromise.

Most every gun law that has passed in the past, both on a Fed and CA level, has served as a framework for more amendments that easily pass, and for more regulatory excess. Even if the initial law was relatively innocuous, its mere existence gives legislators a fast & easy way of gluing things on.

The CA Roster and CA AW bans are perfect examples... the Roster just started out as a drop test, but then as time rolled along added various features and restrictions and finally glued on microstamping (some of that microstamping issue was our side's fault on an unrelated issue however).

And SB23 may well not have passed if Roberti-Roos was not already in place. They just glued on the features definitions.

We're dealing with legislation that passes by fairly few votes anyway. Why make easier or even possible for them to pass by a larger margin?

BTW/FYI: the last result of the hicap mag ban last decade was a transition to more powerful handguns. If you couldn't have 15+ rds of 9mm, the logic went, why not have 10rds of hot 45ACP hardball? (The good congresswoman would not be alive if she'd been hit where she was by a 45ACP round.)

707electrician

01-11-2011, 2:19 PM

I'm an anti-gunner because I believe we MIGHT be a bit safer if the people who choose to do harm MIGHT have a bit tougher time finding a 30-round magazine than their local turners?

If you make it SLIGHTLY harder for them they are just going to find another way to obtain them whether it be importing them, stealing them or manufacturing them.

I'm an anti because I think that with some training and a good sidearm, I'd feel like my friends and family would be suitably well armed with the 10 round mags that have been the standard for quite a while here in California?

Two guys on PCP are threatening deadly violence against you and you have a ten round mag, even with the adrenaline coursing through your veins you are able to put 5 rounds in each attacker but they are on PCP and that just pisses them off, what do you do now?

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways?

There is no compromising with an anti, and your denial of that fact is further evidence of your anit-ness

JHermsen

01-11-2011, 2:20 PM

I fear....I fear I might pee my trousers laughing if he brings up the fact that several people told him to kill himself... who freakin' cares. Just bringing it up is laughable.

Yes, this discussion is over. We all know you drank the CA Koolaid now and your opinion is mute. I believe that not only are you ignorant, but that you are most likely an agent provocateur, now go away.

Chester

01-11-2011, 2:34 PM

"2nd ammendment related legal and political discussion" is the name of this section of Calguns.

I honestly never realized dissenting opinions weren't welcome.

They are welcome for the most part, but you are a contradiction. You claim to not be an anti, but support arbitrary limits on your fellow American's Constitutional rights.

You support restricted capacity magazines for no other reason than because you THINK it MIGHT save lives, but then go on to state your rights to a CCW. Well guess what... there's somebody out there who thinks it might save lives if you handed over your guns to the state so they could be destroyed. And wouldn't they be correct? Wouldn't having just one less gun in the world make it that much safer? So, why don't you just hand it over if that's what you're so worried about? Why do YOU need a gun at all? By your own admission, the police and the military have all the good stuff anyway so they'll always be there to protect you, right?

I honestly question whether you are a gun owner, otherwise you'd realize that there's nothing stopping anybody from building machine guns, bombs, or 500 round drums.

You are either a troll, or you're the worst kind of anti there is because you don't even know you are one.

bwiese

01-11-2011, 2:35 PM

Tkind of anti there is because you don't even know you are one.

Even Jim Zumbo repented. He's now a big black rifle fan and hunts with 'em.

oddball

01-11-2011, 2:36 PM

And I like living in a place where people don't have ready access to high-cap magazines.

I'm an anti-gunner because I believe we MIGHT be a bit safer if the people who choose to do harm MIGHT have a bit tougher time finding a 30-round magazine than their local turners?

I'm an anti because I think that with some training and a good sidearm, I'd feel like my friends and family would be suitably well armed with the 10 round mags that have been the standard for quite a while here in California?

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b169/oddballphoto/sucks2.jpg

Why exactly are you a member in this forum? You are clearly an anti under the guise of a Calgunner. You've been outed. You are no friend of those seeking freedom in firearms ownership, and you have clearly demonstrated that you have no knowledge of the history of gun control and confiscation.

.

JHermsen

01-11-2011, 2:46 PM

Mud Camper has it correct in his avatar and another wise man used words to describe this sort of issue; to the effect of: We must hang together, or we will surely hang apart...

Chester

01-11-2011, 2:52 PM

Even Jim Zumbo repented. He's now a big black rifle fan and hunts with 'em.

Oh believe me, I have room in my heart for people who "see the light." I also used to think restricted capacity magazines and other restrictions were a good idea, but that was before I actually owned a gun. I'm actually ashamed of myself for thinking I had the right to dictate the freedoms of my own people based simply on good feelings and what seemed logical without actually investing the time and energy to prove my ideas right or wrong.

The ancient Greeks stated two objects of different weight would fall to the ground at different rates because it was philosophically sound. Gallilleo proved them wrong by actually dropping two objects of different weight from the Tower of Pisa. Philosophy was destroyed by reality and since then only a fool would state something as truth without proving himself right or wrong.

Back on track. I don't think CALATRAVA is misguided at all. If he's a gun owner, then he's failed to realize the truths about gun control that EVERY new gun owner seems to realize, which makes me think he's just here to see if he can do some damage.

nick

01-11-2011, 3:13 PM

"2nd ammendment related legal and political discussion" is the name of this section of Calguns.

I honestly never realized dissenting opinions weren't welcome.

Oh, please. Your opinions aren't being removed, you're not being banned for them, and that's all one can ask for when it comes to a discussion, regardless of his opinions. If you expect a lot of people to agree with your opinion, well, you must be missing something.

Unless, of course, your idea of a discussion is a mandatory agreement with your opinions.

Man oh man, I couldn't believe I was reading this on Calguns!!! Well anyway, I gotta disagree with you CALATRAVA I do believe we give them an inch and they take 10 miles in this great "example to the rest of the country" state. No we shouldn't back down on our mag capacities. Also watch the video about reloading and see how long it takes to reload a ten rounder. 30 bullets = 30 bullets whether 3 10's or 1 30. Where there's a will there's a way for these murdering psychos. I also think accuracy with more/less bullets is a case by case basis... take it as you will I can't support your claims... evil is out there no matter how many bullets my magazine holds... wrong place wrong time for this one.

CALATRAVA

01-11-2011, 3:28 PM

FWIW, I hope we can all still view CALTRAVA, violator, Billy Jack, etc. as our friends and compatriots. I think they are well-meaning and sincere even though I think they are very wrong.

Doubtful. Too bad.

I tried my best to bring my opinions and thoughts to a group who has seemed knowledgable and open to discussion. When I realized part of what I wrote was taken as an offense, I re-stated what I meant in an attempt communicate what I was thinking. "Mandatory agreement"? On the contrary, I was hoping for a good conversation, and expected to be disagreed with. Call me naive, if I am a bit surprised at how nasty some of you have been.

I've been nothing but honest. Granted I don't have the articles in front of me, but I'm a prolific reader of Ayoob, Cooper, etc and didn't think my assumptions were far off base from most of you, in what I expressed about gun fights and what "usually" happens. That a good handgun or revolver in the 6 to 10round range is very effective for protecting yourself.

And no, I still don't think that as a gun-owner, i have to 100% agree with and support every single fight that the CGF brings to the table, but I will admit that I am a bit regretful that simply bringing up this conversation might hurt their efforts. Not what I intended when I wrote up my first post in the thread.

-C

OleCuss

01-11-2011, 3:37 PM

Doubtful. Too bad.

I tried my best to bring my opinions and thoughts to a group who has seemed knowledgable and open to discussion. When I realized part of what I wrote was taken as an offense, I re-stated what I meant in an attempt communicate what I was thinking. "Mandatory agreement"? On the contrary, I was hoping for a good conversation, and expected to be disagreed with. Call me naive, if I am a bit surprised at how nasty some of you have been.

I've been nothing but honest. Granted I don't have the articles in front of me, but I'm a prolific reader of Ayoob, Cooper, etc and didn't think my assumptions were far off base from most of you, in what I expressed about gun fights and what "usually" happens. That a good handgun or revolver in the 6 to 10round range is very effective for protecting yourself.

And no, I still don't think that as a gun-owner, i have to 100% agree with and support every single fight that the CGF brings to the table, but I will admit that I am a bit regretful that simply bringing up this conversation might hurt their efforts. Not what I intended when I wrote up my first post in the thread.

-C

Thank you. I appreciate that post.

I believe you to be a brother in the good fight although I have major disagreements in this area.

Maestro Pistolero

01-11-2011, 3:52 PM

I'm an anti-gunner because I believe we MIGHT be a bit safer if the people who choose to do harm MIGHT have a bit tougher time finding a 30-round magazine than their local turners?

I'm an anti because I think that with some training and a good sidearm, I'd feel like my friends and family would be suitably well armed with the 10 round mags that have been the standard for quite a while here in California?

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways?

Gimme a break, sir. Perhaps not an anti, but horribly naive. No disrespect intended.

ptoguy2002

01-11-2011, 4:00 PM

I'm an anti because you're afraid that if you try to compromise with those who seek to take guns altogether, that they'll take all of them anyways?

Yes.
And if you don't believe that, then you have learned nothing from history.

2009_gunner

01-11-2011, 4:16 PM

NOT ONE STEP BACKWARDS.

Exactly. Never. Under any circumstances.

Guns are not different from any other tool, and we have a lot of rights to regain.

Anyone talking of surrender because of one nutjob in 300 million person country needs to read about automobile related deaths. Or deaths from falling. Or deaths from drowning. Or alcohol.

Seriously.

Give up nothing, but take ground from the grabbers.

jimmiya

01-11-2011, 4:20 PM

We lost the capacity law during the Clinton era and we got the right back. As selfish or senseless as it may sound we need to keep all the rights that we have as obiding citizens. We are constantly getting attacked and if we give them an inch next they will want a mile. Yes if the shooter had lower capacity mags it might have come about differently but so would if an armed bystander used his Concealed Carry Weapon and remediate the hostile situation!

Bruce

01-11-2011, 4:24 PM

Doubtful. Too bad.

I tried my best to bring my opinions and thoughts to a group who has seemed knowledgable and open to discussion. When I realized part of what I wrote was taken as an offense, I re-stated what I meant in an attempt communicate what I was thinking. "Mandatory agreement"? On the contrary, I was hoping for a good conversation, and expected to be disagreed with. Call me naive, if I am a bit surprised at how nasty some of you have been.

I've been nothing but honest. Granted I don't have the articles in front of me, but I'm a prolific reader of Ayoob, Cooper, etc and didn't think my assumptions were far off base from most of you, in what I expressed about gun fights and what "usually" happens. That a good handgun or revolver in the 6 to 10round range is very effective for protecting yourself.

And no, I still don't think that as a gun-owner, i have to 100% agree with and support every single fight that the CGF brings to the table, but I will admit that I am a bit regretful that simply bringing up this conversation might hurt their efforts. Not what I intended when I wrote up my first post in the thread.

-C

Naive would best describe you. You sound very young. Some of us have been in this fight since the 1970's. Back then California had a three day wait on handgun purchases: as a cooling off period, not a background check. Rifles and shotguns were cash and carry. Then handguns went to a five day wait, then ten, than fifteen, and finally back to ten. Then followed the Roberti Roos AWB. Long guns were put on the ten day DROS.All because a nut case shot up a school yard in Stockton. As Bill pointed out, the hunters and target shooters "compromised" to be left alone. Then the feds AWB came along, followed by California's and the "Roster". That's what being naive about what compromise has brought us. I'm sorry you expected your view to be accepted as just another opinion. Compromise is never acceptable when it comes to our civil rights. To think otherwise is naive.

Peter W Bush

01-11-2011, 4:24 PM

No, it's not done.

You're an anti, and need to be run to ground.

I've been 'sold out' in the past too many times by people supposedly on my side....

Bill Ruger *****ing' about hicap mags (helping out the '94 AWB) I didn't buy a Ruger 'til he was off the scence/dead
and new mgmt was in place (hey, Ruger makes ARs and sells hicaps to individuals now, whaddya know?)
.
S&W sellout to Cuomo/HUD. Massive management change thru inverted corporate buyout fixed that. S&W is now an
aggresively pro-gun company even though it may have cost them some PD/LE biz in larger metro depts at the time.
.
CA 'duck hunters' & Thirty Caliber Idiot 'target shooters' (protecting their precious wood guns at the cost of everyone
else's - which is why I call 'em that) appearing in ads & promotionals in support of CA's orig AW ban, and speaking
up as incompetent individuals instead of letting the NRA speak for them
.
CA's "approved handgun Roster" was brought to us by SASS (using NRA traitor Richard Feldman as their lobbyist) in
cooperation with some old now-cashiered gun 'lobbyists' who had other interests besides guns. Again, they sold out
and broke unity trying to protect their precious special-interest gun instead of maintaining ranks to block the whole action.

Don't forget one of "our own," Jim Zumbo. I am an avid hunter and that used to be the main reason I own guns. Upon further research of Second Amendment and writings of our founding fathers, I have come to the conclusion that it is the DUTY of EVERY CAPABLE American to be proficient with firearms. We should NEVER, EVER be willing to give up ANY of the few rights we already have. The 2A was rewritten quite a few times to be crystal clear. We are necessary to the security of a free state. "The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting."

Exiledviking

01-11-2011, 4:26 PM

Since CALATRAVA is comfortable with us being limited to 10 rounds, why don't we limit him to 10 posts.

highpowermatch

01-11-2011, 4:34 PM

It's not up to you weather or not 10 rounds are enough to defend myself with there's no magical number of rounds it takes.

Bingo, and its only a matter of time before the magic number ten is dropped to 5 and so on.......

the_quark

01-11-2011, 4:35 PM

In Calatrava's defense, I will admit, when I first started reading about this, I did think to myself, "Huh. I wonder if this means that a lower capacity magazine would've resulted in fewer deaths, here?" I think that's a reasonable question to ask.

As I've outlined above (and I don't know if you've been reading me, Calatrava), I don't think it's actually the case here that if he'd been held to "normal capacity" (or even "small capacity") magazines, it would've saved lives, even this case.

However, if you continue to think that, and if you also are unmoved by arguments that we have a right to such magazines, and are only concerned about net harm, consider:

Mr. Loughner, in his reprehensible action, killed six and wounded fourteen (I believe). This gives him a hit rate of 60% (if we assume one shot per victim, which may not be correct). So, if he'd had a ten-round magazine, and had been stopped during reload (which I think is unlikely, since I think a magazine malfunction contributed to his being stopped), AND we assume that he had the same wounded:dead ratio, we'd be looking at a casualty count of 2 dead and 4 wounded. Certainly, a less horrible outcome than reality.

Now, between 1987, and 1990, David McDowall's study on defensive gun use indicated that guns were used 64,615 times annually in defense against assault, robbery or rape. This number has been criticized as being far to few (others put the number literally in the millions). But, let's run with it - the real number certainly isn't less.

The same study concludes shots were fired in 28% of those cases - roughly 18,000 times per year. Unfortunately, there is no data available that I'm aware of on average shots fired in these cases. If you look at (e.g.), the number of shots fired per Member of Service (MOS) from NYPD:

http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/SOP9/2000.htm

In 2000, you had 6.9 shots/MOS, and 16.8 shots/incident. I'd think the latter number is more interesting for this case (since you probably don't have armed backup). But, let's be conservative and use even 6 shots as "average". Under any reasonable distribution, I'd expect the right-most part of that curve to be over ten.

A Law Enforcement Officer earlier in the thread said he'd never spoken to a CCW holder who wished he had eleven shots when he only had ten. That's because CCW holders who wish they had an extra shot are called murder victims.

In what percentage of those 18,000 "shots fired" gun uses was it needed to fire more than ten shots? 10%? 1%? Even with 1%, you still have 180 "good guys" who need that extra shot per year, balanced against the 4 extra dead and 10 extra wounded in this incident. This incident, I'll note, is the only one I'm aware of in all of history in which the magazine size even conceivably might have mattered.

Even from a "net harm" perspective, I think the rational thing is still to continue to allow the good guys to have high capacity magazines. That's of course, not even reiterating all the freedom-loving reasons why it's a good idea.

GettoPhilosopher

01-11-2011, 4:38 PM

Win

I was going to say something, but then you said it all better. :)

707electrician

01-11-2011, 4:41 PM

A Law Enforcement Officer earlier in the thread said he'd never spoken to a CCW holder who wishe'd he had eleven shots when he only had ten. That's because CCW holders who wish they had an extra shot are called murder victims.

Im just going to quote this to make sure its nobody misses it

nick

01-11-2011, 4:53 PM

Since CALATRAVA is comfortable with us being limited to 10 rounds, why don't we limit him to 10 posts.

Because we're supposed to be the good guys who defend freedom, not the other way around.

Super Spy

01-11-2011, 4:55 PM

FWIW, I hope we can all still view CALTRAVA, violator, Billy Jack, etc. as our friends and compatriots. I think they are well-meaning and sincere even though I think they are very wrong.

Calatrava became the first CalGunner I seriously considered "blocking" then I remembered wise words about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. Bwiese alluded to "anti's" posting here, and he is right. The enemy is among us. Well intentioned they may be, enemy nevertheless. We need to keep a close eye on them lest they try and speak for us. The Nazi's thought they were doing what was in the best interest of Germany and we know how that worked out. (If you don't like that insinuation, stop acting like one)

highpowermatch

01-11-2011, 4:57 PM

I am sure the Russians said something similar rolling into Afghanistan. Or the US army into Vietnam, or Afganistan, or Iraq.

Warsaw ghetto

Super Spy

01-11-2011, 4:57 PM

No breaks for compromise.

Most every gun law that has passed in the past, both on a Fed and CA level, has served as a framework for more amendments that easily pass, and for more regulatory excess. Even if the initial law was relatively innocuous, its mere existence gives legislators a fast & easy way of gluing things on.

The CA Roster and CA AW bans are perfect examples... the Roster just started out as a drop test, but then as time rolled along added various features and restrictions and finally glued on microstamping (some of that microstamping issue was our side's fault on an unrelated issue however).

And SB23 may well not have passed if Roberti-Roos was not already in place. They just glued on the features definitions.

We're dealing with legislation that passes by fairly few votes anyway. Why make easier or even possible for them to pass by a larger margin?

BTW/FYI: the last result of the hicap mag ban last decade was a transition to more powerful handguns. If you couldn't have 15+ rds of 9mm, the logic went, why not have 10rds of hot 45ACP hardball? (The good congresswoman would not be alive if she'd been hit where she was by a 45ACP round.)

Good point Bill! Exactly why I picked a Glock 30.....gotta make those 10 rounds count.

BamBam-31

01-11-2011, 4:58 PM

The strange irony in all of this to me is the following:

Both the Brady folks and the 2A advocates are really aiming for the same goal; to make things safer for everyone.

The Brady's do it by trying to limit the rights of honest law abiding citizens.

The prop 2A folks do it by fighting to ensure that the rights of law abiding citizens exist in their full capacity.

As an honest citizen who follows the law, which approach makes you feel safer? Have your rights limited or ensuring they exist in their full capacity?

Keep in mind the criminals/whackjobs are immune to both approaches as they operate outside of the strictures of the law as both are considered prohibited persons for the purchase and ownership of firearms.

^^^This. Even if "common sense" hi-cap mag laws are passed, there are still millions upon millions of hi-cap mags out there that don't just somehow magically disappear. AND, most importantly, criminals and psychos will ALWAYS have access to them and to their respective firearms, regardless of the law.

So in the really real world that we live in (not the "feel good" hypothetical Utopia the libbies live in), these "common sense" laws only affect US. They have little (perhaps even NO) effect on the crimes that they purportedly target.

Not to mention the very real slippery slope of new gun legislation to pile on top of all the other ineffective stuff. Study your history--there is a very real agenda out there that aims at disarming us all completely, and they will not stop until that end is achieved. "Common sense" laws are their way of getting their foot in the door, their first step in a journey of 1000 steps. To concede that first step willingly is to place yourself on the wrong side of the "with us or against us" battle, regardless of your intentions. The road to Hell and all that, eh? ;)

AK4me

01-11-2011, 5:19 PM

This is dumb, even if 10rd mags was all we could buy Im sure the Criminals would figure out a way to modify them to hold more. After looking at a few of my 10rd mags Im sure I can modify some of them. But I am not a criminal.

highpowermatch

01-11-2011, 5:21 PM

Come over to my place, I can swim in hundreds of them. Or I can send you a video of said swimming.

In 6 months, if not less, there will be fully CA + Federally legal "ready access" [defined as 'mail order with special steps/intermediares, and at a somewhat elevated price] to hicap mags *within* CA for both new and old guns, for pistols and rifles, for C&R guns and evil black guns.

And there will also be nothing CA can do about it legislatively nor judicially (other than perhaps some initial LE harassment, which we are taking pains of averting instead of just 'getting it on' immediately) -- and I believe we're secure Federally from any changes in this area given national politics.

So I hope you are uncomfortable.

Bill, I love you MAN!!!!!

locosway

01-11-2011, 5:26 PM

The idea that 5, 10, 20, 30 is a reasonable limit is stupid. What difference does it make to these two shooters below what round limit they have?

DJVoc5uJ2e4
lLk1v5bSFPw

Any competent shooter who has a little practice can enact a reload in a minimal amount of time. The guy in AZ was crazy, a nut job, a loon. Why do you want to restrict millions of people because some guy who was mental killed a few people?

Then we fast forward to shop owners who use firearms in self defense. Often they're attacked by multiple people, and 5 rounds isn't enough for them. So what do they do, carry 10 magazines on their belt while working?

MudCamper

01-11-2011, 5:30 PM

In Calatrava's defense, I will admit, when I first started reading about this, I did think to myself, "Huh. I wonder if this means that a lower capacity magazine would've resulted in fewer deaths, here?" I think that's a reasonable question to ask.

As I've outlined above (and I don't know if you've been reading me, Calatrava), I don't think it's actually the case here that if he'd been held to "normal capacity" (or even "small capacity") magazines, it would've saved lives, even this case.

However, if you continue to think that, and if you also are unmoved by arguments that we have a right to such magazines, and are only concerned about net harm, consider:

Mr. Loughner, in his reprehensible action, killed six and wounded fourteen (I believe). This gives him a hit rate of 60% (if we assume one shot per victim, which may not be correct). So, if he'd had a ten-round magazine, and had been stopped during reload (which I think is unlikely, since I think a magazine malfunction contributed to his being stopped), AND we assume that he had the same wounded:dead ratio, we'd be looking at a casualty count of 2 dead and 4 wounded. Certainly, a less horrible outcome than reality.

Now, between 1987, and 1990, David McDowall's study on defensive gun use indicated that guns were used 64,615 times annually in defense against assault, robbery or rape. This number has been criticized as being far to few (others put the number literally in the millions). But, let's run with it - the real number certainly isn't less.

The same study concludes shots were fired in 28% of those cases - roughly 18,000 times per year. Unfortunately, there is no data available that I'm aware of on average shots fired in these cases. If you look at (e.g.), the number of shots fired per Member of Service (MOS) from NYPD:

http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/SOP9/2000.htm

In 2000, you had 6.9 shots/MOS, and 16.8 shots/incident. I'd think the latter number is more interesting for this case (since you probably don't have armed backup). But, let's be conservative and use even 6 shots as "average". Under any reasonable distrobution, I'd expect the right-most part of that curve to be over ten.

A Law Enforcement Officer earlier in the thread said he'd never spoken to a CCW holder who wished he had eleven shots when he only had ten. That's because CCW holders who wish they had an extra shot are called murder victims.

In what percentage of those 18,000 "shots fired" gun uses was it needed to fire more than ten shots? 10%? 1%? Even with 1%, you still have 180 "good guys" who need that extra shot per year, balanced against the 4 extra dead and 10 extra wounded in this incident. This incident, I'll note, is the only one I'm aware of in all of history in which the magazine size even conceivably might have mattered.

Even from a "net harm" perspective, I think the rational thing is still to continue to allow the good guys to have high capacity magazines. That's of course, not even reiterating all the freedom-loving reasons why it's a good idea.

Brilliant post. Cold, hard numbers. Anyone who still thinks that banning hi-caps is a good idea after reading this post, is an anti, without any doubt.

AAShooter

01-11-2011, 5:31 PM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

Let's assume I fully agree with your logic from self defense point of view. I, in fact, am a fan of the 1911 chambered in .45ACP so I don't even take an advantage of the full 10 rounds we are allowed.

However, there is the entertainment/recreational use issue. Clearly large cap magazines are a hoot to use when running and gunning. Just like the case with swimming pools where people regularly lose their lives (many children) we make the decision that the recreational benefit out weighs the relatively small level of fatalities. Further, if you consider how many lives are really lost to high capacity magazines vs. 10-round Clinton magazines, it is hard to justify from a recreational point of view.

the_quark

01-11-2011, 5:31 PM

The idea that 5, 10, 20, 30 is a reasonable limit is stupid. What difference does it make to these two shooters below what round limit they have?

Even though I agree we shouldn't restrict large-capacity magazine ownership, I think this misses the point. Press reports are that Mr. Loughner was disabled while reloading. Responding, "well, a trained shooter can reload quickly" isn't relevant in this argument.

Now, as I've said, I think the very unreliability of his 33-round magazine played a factor in his being disabled. However, someone who doesn't think through all the issues is going to say "If he'd had a smaller magazine, he would've had to reload, and would've been disabled, sooner." Responding, "Yeah, well, a well-trained individual can't be disabled while he's reloading" has nothing to do with what happened here, and isn't going to help us win this argument.

chris

01-11-2011, 5:33 PM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

i will say what i think most have not it takes real scum to use the tragedy of innocent people to move an agenda forward and you sir are that scum that appears to use this tragedy to further an agenda that is fueled by death and mayhem caused by a very small percentage of the gun owning public.

since it appears that you only post here once in a while and you use this tragedy again to push for a ban on magazines that really have no corolation to crime at all. the AWB was a farce and we all know it except for those that despise gun ownership. the magazine ban the went along with it was a farce also.

i ask that you go back in the hole you came out of and keep the agenda that uses the death of innocents to further an agenda that is statiscly false and uses absolutely no scientific evidence that could hold water on a submarine with screen doors.

coltn46920

01-11-2011, 5:38 PM

Most people agree that statistically it doesn't take more than a few shots, if any at all, to defend yourself in a true self-defense situation. Often, the simple presence of a sidearm is enough to end the fight. In the real world, a snub-nose or detective's .38 has long been the real-world everyday carry go-to weapon. (As much as you chest beaters say you carry a Government .45:))

All reports agree on the fact that in the recent Arizona shooting, the limiting factor during the killing spree was this man's ammo supply and his need to reload.

He used up a 30 round magazine and was tackled as he reloaded. If this had happened with a 7 (.45acp) or a 10 round(9mm) magazine under the exact same circumstances, I would bet that a least a few of the people who are now dead, would still be alive.

You can disagree, but this incident in AZ has fully galvanized in my head, that I have no need, nor do you, for high-cap magazines. If the anti's are fine with 10rounders, so am I.

It's a good compromise that experts from gunsite, to front-sight, to thunder ranch say will not keep me from firing off those statistically few rounds to defend myself.

I still absolutely believe that I should be able to CCW anywhere I choose, but the fight on this issue is one I no longer support.

-B

So you want to limit the capacity of law abiding citizens. Do you really think criminals will follow these laws?

TempleKnight

01-11-2011, 5:39 PM

But seriously? You'd let violent felons have firearms? You truly oppose all firearms laws? Remember, if you really mean that you'd let people on Death Row have fully automatic weapons - even our EPW's could keep their firearms?

There is room for some minimalist firearms law.

Where do we draw the line for "minimalist". The OP thinks it's 10 round mags. I think we should overturn the CGA68 and see what compromises we can find in the NFA34.

707electrician

01-11-2011, 5:45 PM

Even though I agree we shouldn't restrict large-capacity magazine ownership, I think this misses the point. Press reports are that Mr. Loughner was disabled while reloading. Responding, "well, a trained shooter can reload quickly" isn't relevant in this argument.

Now, as I've said, I think the very unreliability of his 33-round magazine played a factor in his being disabled. However, someone who doesn't think through all the issues is going to say "If he'd had a smaller magazine, he would've had to reload, and would've been disabled, sooner." Responding, "Yeah, well, a well-trained individual can't be disabled while he's reloading" has nothing to do with what happened here, and isn't going to help us win this argument.

Its probable that had he been equipped with 3- 10round mags instead of 1- 30round he still would have been able to get off 30 rounds before someone got to him. This is all speculation however, just as saying "limiting his mag capacity would have saved lives" is

elSquid

01-11-2011, 5:46 PM

This is dumb, even if 10rd mags was all we could buy Im sure the Criminals would figure out a way to modify them to hold more. After looking at a few of my 10rd mags Im sure I can modify some of them. But I am not a criminal.

Sociopaths probably wouldn't bother. I'm not sure how big of an impact a >10 round mag ban would have on such persons. Lack of capacity is easily addressed by reloading during a lull, or by having multiple guns.

The Virgina Tech killer had two pistols, and had plenty of time to shoot multiple victims as he wandered the campus.

The Columbine killers had multiple guns and worked as a team. One could cover the other during a reload, if it ever came to that.

The Beltway sniper didn't need a "large capacity magazine"; he simply shot victims at range with a rifle.

Hell, the "Son of Sam" killer used a 5 shot revolver.

-- Michael

RomanDad

01-11-2011, 5:46 PM

I'm having as many standard caps shipped to my place in indiana as I can afford. The rest of you are on your own.

the_quark

01-11-2011, 5:50 PM

Its probable that had he been equipped with 3- 10round mags instead of 1- 30round he still would have been able to get off 30 rounds before someone got to him. This is all speculation however, just as saying "limiting his mag capacity would have saved lives" is

I actually agree (I think the second 33-rounder malfunctioning is what really stopped him). I'm just saying, if someone says "If he'd had a ten round magazine he only would've gotten ten shots off before he was stopped," then responding "Well, a trained shooter can switch magazines really fast" is nonsensical.